Delhi High Court
Narinder Pal Verma vs Kamal Thapar on 29 February, 2024
Author: Rajnish Bhatnagar
Bench: Rajnish Bhatnagar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 05.12.2023
% Pronounced on : 29.02.2024
+ CRL.M.C. 4244/2023 AND CRL.M.A. 33217-18/2023
NARINDER PAL VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Advocate (appearance not given).
versus
KAMAL THAPAR ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
JUDGMENT
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 17.03.2023 passed in
Ct. Cases 1698/2018, whereby the application filed under Section 311
Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
2. Heard.
3. Records Perused.
4. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 17.03.2023
has been passed in an arbitrary manner by the learned Trial Court
without considering the fact that the counsel for the petitioner could
not appear on 20.01.2023 before the learned trial court as his father
had suffered a dementia attack and except him no other male member
was available in the family to take care of his father. It was further
submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to take note that
counsel for the petitioner could not appear due to unavoidable
circumstance that his father is a patient of acute and advanced
dementia whose treatment is going on before a neurosurgeon. It was
further submitted that while closing the rights of the petitioner to
cross-examine the complainant vide order dated 20.01.2023, the
learned Trial Court did not appreciate that whenever counsel for the
petitioner did not appear, he had informed the opposite counsel
regarding the same. It was further submitted that cross-examination of
the complainant is essential for just and proper adjudication of the
case. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in any
case, the petitioner should not be made to suffer because of fault on
the part of his previous counsel.
5. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner
had relied on the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Duni
Chand v. Godawari and on a judgment passed by this Court in
Sandeep Singh v. Ranjana Gawri.
6. As the present petition challenges the order dated 17.03.2023, it
is necessary to look into the impugned order, which is reproduced
hereunder:
"Case was fixed for cross examination of complainant as
CW-1 on 15.05.2019. Thereafter number of opportunities
had been granted to accused. On 02.06.2022 adjournment
was sought on behalf of accused as main counsel was not
available. Thereafter, on 19.10.2022 also adjournment
was sought. Subsequently, on 23.11.2022 proxy counsel
for the accused had yet again sought an adjournment.
Thereafter on 04.01.2023 also adjournment was sought
and final opportunity was granted for the next date.
Thereafter, case was listed on 20.01.2023 for the said
purpose but the counsel for accused was not present for
cross-examination of CW 1 and evidence was not
recorded.
Accordingly, evidence was closed.
Today an application moved on· behalf of accused U/s 311
Cr.P.C for cross-examination of the complainant.
Heard.
I have perused the record.
As per the record sufficient opportunities had been
granted to the accused for cross-examination and the
accused has failed to cross-examine the complainant.
Hence, the evidence has been closed. The application has
no merit and is misconceived. Application is dismissed.
SA has been recorded. Accused wants to lead evidence in
defence.
To come up for DE on 31.05.2023."
7. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the matter was first
listed before the learned trial court for cross-examination on
15.05.2019 and after granting various opportunities, it remained
pending till 20.01.2023. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court having no
option but to close the opportunity for cross-examination of the
complainant.
8. In essence, the matter remained on Board for cross-examination
of CW-1 for about four years and there is no cogent explanation
forthcoming from the petitioner except the bald plea that father of the
counsel for the petitioner is a suffering from dementia and that too
from the record appears to be a half-hearted plea. Furthermore, even
before this Court, there is nothing on record in support of the said
contention. Moreover, the petitioner could have arranged another
counsel and could have proceeded with the case.
9. However, the present case is of such a nature which, in my
opinion, should be expeditiously decided, but cross examination could
not be done in four years, and more than enough indulgence was
granted to the petitioner for the said purpose by the Trial Court.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the judgment in
Duni Chand v. Godawari (supra). There is no dispute with regard to
the settled proposition of law but the judgments relied upon by
counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case and each case is to be decided on
the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
11. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated
17.03.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court and the same is hereby
upheld. Furthermore, prayers are untenable in law and, therefore, this
Court does not deem it appropriate to even issue notice to the
respondent.
12. Accordingly, the petition along with pending applications
stands dismissed.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J
FEBRUARY 29, 2024
p
