Anurag Sood vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2017 Latest Caselaw 274 Del

$~28

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Judgment dated: 16th January, 2017
+      CRL.M.C. 169/2017
       ANURAG SOOD                                         ..... Petitioner
                       Through:          Ms.Sumita Kapil, Adv. with
                                         Ms.Poojaswami, Adv.

                     versus

       STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                                ..... Respondent
                     Through:            Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for State
                                         Inspector Divesh Kumar, Police Station-
                                         Kanjhawala

CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

I.S.MEHTA, J (ORAL)

CRL.M.A.786/2017
       Exemption granted, subject to all just exceptions.
       Application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 169/2017 & CRL.M.A.787/2017
1.     This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C challenging the impugned
       order dated 3rd November, 2016 passed by learned ASJ-II, North-West,
       Rohini, Delhi in case title "State versus Anurag Sood" FIR No.
       1042/2014, under Sections 397/392/34 IPC, registered at Police Station-
       Kanjhawala dismissing the application filed by petitioner under Section
       311 Cr.P.C.
2.     It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned
       order dated 3rd November, 2016 is bad in law. She has submitted that the
       case pertains to robbery of Rs.8,000/- and mobile phone; which is alleged

CRL.M.C. 169/2017                                              Page 1 of 3
        to be recovered from the petitioner after about 19 days. She has further
       submitted that the complainant Sameer Saifi was examined as PW-9
       before the Trial Court and was cross examined on 12th April, 2016. She
       has further submitted that later it was transpired that certain questions
       regarding the nature of weapon could not be put to PW-9 and has
       submitted that the cross-examination of PW-9 is sine qua non. She has
       further submitted that to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order be
       set aside and the petitioner be allowed to further cross examine PW-9.
3.     Learned APP for State has vehemently opposed the contention of learned
       counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was
       represented through counsel. He has submitted that changing of counsel
       by the petitioner does not confer him any right to recall PW-9 for further
       cross examination and prays that the present petition be dismissed.
4.     What is emerging on record is that the petitioner engaged a new counsel
       who moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C seeking recalling of
       PW-9. The learned Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that
       the application so moved is due to ulterior motive and design planned by
       the petitioner and is not bonafide.
5.     The petitioner is seeking permission for recalling of PW-9 on the point of
       nature of weapon used. I am of the considered view that the conclusion
       given by the Court below is not correct as it is the cross-examination
       which forms the evidence and on the basis of evidence available on
       record; it is to be determined whether the petitioner has committed the
       offence or not.
6.     Resultantly, the impugned order dated 3rd November, 2016 is hereby set
       aside and the petitioner is given right to further cross-examine PW-9 who
       shall be confining his questions with regard to the nature of weapon used.
7.     The present petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. All pending

CRL.M.C. 169/2017                                            Page 2 of 3
        application(s) (if any) also stand disposed of.
8.     Copy of this order be given dasti.
                    .

I.S. MEHTA (JUDGE) JANUARY 16, 2017/radhika