Delhi High Court
Veena Pittie vs State on 29 January, 2020
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 29.01.2020
+ CRL.M.C. 3632/2019 & Crl.M.A. 32124/2019
VEENA PITTIE ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Kailash Vasudev & Mr.P.C. Sen,
Sr. Advs. with Mr.Sidharth Joshi,
Ms.Bindu Saxena, Mr.Dhruv Saxena,
Ms.Aparajita Swarup, MS.Ambaree,
Mr.Rajat Prajapati & Mr.Shantanu
Rathor, Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State.
SI Mahesh Kumar PS Nabi Karim.
Mr.Prince Arora, Adv. for
complainant /R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. The present petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973
against the order dated 15.05.2019 passed by learned MM, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi whereby application under section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the
petitioner has been dismissed.
2. As stated in present petition, as per the order dated 21.01.2019 of this
Court in the Crl.M.C. 1195/2017, this Court had directed to conduct the
cross examination of the complainant i.e. PW-1 and further directed to
obtain the certified copy of the same and place it on record before the Court.
Meanwhile, accused no.1 Late Sh. Girdhari Lal had expired and the same
was brought to the notice of trial court on 06.02.2019 and Trial Court called
for the death verification report of the said accused Girdhari Lal.
Accordingly, cross examination of PW-1 was adjourned for 27.02.2019 as
due to death of said accused the nature, strategy and quantum of questions of
the cross examination were to be changed. On 27.02.2019, the death
verification report of Girdhari Lal was still awaited and the matter was
further adjourned to 06.03.2019. Thereafter, on 06.03.2019, the Presiding
Officer was on leave and matter was adjourned to 16.03.2019. Again on the
said date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was again
adjourned to 27.03.2019 and again on the said date, PO was on leave and
adjourned for 10.04.2019. On all these hearings, counsel for the petitioner
was present throughout. On 10.04.2019, the complainant i.e. PW-1 did not
appear for the cross examination and matter was further adjourned to
24.04.2019. On the said date, counsel for the accused had to attend the
matter at the Hon'ble Supreme Court and directed proxy counsel to seek a
pass over for 12:30 pm or beyond but the court passed it over for 12 noon.
At that time, proxy counsel requested some more time as the main counsel
could not reach by that time to cross examine the complainant. The request
made by proxy counsel was turned down by the Trial Court and further
directed to close the opportunity to cross examine the complainant by the
accused.
3. Counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed the present petition
and submits that 4-5 dates have already been given to cross examine,
however, petitioner declined the same. He further submits that even after
imposing cost, the petitioner is lingering on the trial and not cross-examine
the complainant.
4. Keeping in view the fact that FIR is of 2009 and trial is going on, this
Court also issued directions to complete cross examination by February,
2019, however, meanwhile, one accused Girdhari Lal expired due to which
cross examination was deferred and on three dates as mentioned above, PO
was on leave whereas the petitioner was present in court.
5. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court
shall fix a particular date and time and if the petitioner does not come
forward to cross examine the witness, his right to cross examine shall be
closed.
6. Since the petitioner has wasted a lot of time as is apparent from the
order of the Trial Court, I hereby impose cost of Rs.20,000/- upon the
petitioner.
7. Out of the cost amount, Rs.10,000/- shall be paid in favour of the
complainant and balance of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid in favour of Delhi
High Court Legal Service Committee.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and disposed of.
9. Pending application stands disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
JANUARY 29, 2020
ab
