Anil Gupta & Ors. vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 2317 Del

    * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of Decision: March 18, 2015

+     CRL.M.C. 1076/2015 & Crl. M.A.Nos. 4044-45/2015
      ANIL GUPTA & ORS.                                   ..... Petitioners
                    Through:            Mr. Ajay Burman, Mr. Karan
                                        Burman, Mr. Aditya Swarup
                                        Agarwal, Mr. Harsit Khurana, Mr.
                                        Kiran Sidhu & Mr. Amritesh Raj,
                                        Advocates
                          versus

      STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)            ..... Respondent
                    Through: Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
                              Prosecutor for respondent-State
                              with Inspector Rameshwar
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                          JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Impugned order of 14th January, 2015 declines petitioner's application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for cross-examination of the injured (PW-12) of FIR No. 283/2004, under Section 307/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Kalkaji, New Delhi.

The reason to reject petitioner's application is that the injured (PW-

12) has been extensively cross-examined and recalling of the said witness for further cross-examination is not justified.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that injured (PW-12) has been cross-examined regarding the enmity but has not been cross- examined at all regarding the actual incident and it will take one hour by Crl.M.C.No.1076/2015 Page 1 watch to cross-examine him on the point of incident and thereafter, cross- examination of injured (PW-12) would be closed.

This petition is opposed by Ms. Nishi Jain, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State who submits that on few occasions, adjournment has been sought on behalf of petitioner and the intention is to harass the witness and delay the proceedings.

This is strongly refuted by learned counsel for petitioner, who submits that if it is so found then petitioner be put to terms.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and the copy of deposition of injured (PW-12), I find that further cross-examination of injured (PW-12) is essential for the just decision of this case. The undertaking furnished on behalf of the petitioner to cross-examine injured (PW-12) for one hour only by watch is taken on record.

This petition is disposed of while allowing petitioner's application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. subject to cost of `50,000/- to be deposited with the Prime Minister's Relief Fund before the next date of hearing before the trial court. It is made clear that only one effective opportunity is granted to conclude cross-examination of the injured (PW-

12).

With aforesaid directions, this petition and applications are disposed of.

Dasti.

                                                          (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                            JUDGE
MARCH 18, 2015
r



Crl.M.C.No.1076/2015                                                 Page 2