Jagdish Chandra vs Devendra
2021 Latest Caselaw 8282 Raj

(1 of 3) [CRLMP-1229/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1229/2021

Jagdish Chandra S/o Shri Jamna Lal Laddha, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Sri Ram Kutiya, C-12, Moti Nagar, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus Devendra S/o Shri Vinod Kumar, By Caste Saraswat, R/o House No. 01-3-16, Chandra Shekhar Azad Nagar, Bhilwara.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Purohit, Adv.

For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. TRS Sodha, Adv.



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                         Judgment / Order

25/03/2021

The present misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07.03.2020

passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)

Cases, Bhilwara whereby the learned Judge rejected the revision

of the petitioner and upheld the order dated 18.10.2019 passed

by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, NI Act No.2, Bhilwara,

whereby the trial court rejected the application filed by the

petitioner to open the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the

complainant, which has been closed by the trial court vide order

dated 12.10.2018.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that since there were talks

between the petitioner and the complainant for settling the matter

amicable, as such the petitioner or his counsel could not present

before the trial court on 12.10.2018 and in his absence, the trial

court has closed the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-1229/2021]

complainant. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is an

accused and if opportunity to cross-examine the complainant is

not granted, the petitioner shall be deprived of his valuable right,

therefore it is prayed that one last opportunity may be granted to

the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant. Counsel submits

that the petitioner is also ready to deposit the cost before the trial

court.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant

has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the

petitioner and submits that so many opportunities have been

given to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant but he

continuously sought adjournment, therefore the trial court rightly

closed the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the

complainant. The order passed by the trial court as upheld by the

revisional court is just and proper and requires no interference

from this Court.

I have considered the arguments advanced before me and

perused the orders impugned as also carefully gone through the

material available on record.

On perusal of the order impugned, it is revealed that earlier

opportunities were granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the

complainant but he failed to do the same without any plausible

reason. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioner is

an accused and right to cross-examine the complainant is a

valuable right, in the interest of justice, one last opportunity

should be granted to the accused-petitioner to cross-examine the

complainant.

Accordingly the impugned order dated 18.10.2019 and

07.03.2020 passed by the courts below are set aside. The

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-1229/2021]

petitioner is granted one last opportunity to cross-examine the

complainant on the next date before the trial court i.e. 01.04.2021

subject to deposit the cost of Rs.5,000/-. The complainant is

directed to appear before the trial court on the next date i.e.

01.04.2021 for cross-examination. If the petitioner fails to cross-

examine the complainant on 01.04.2021, then no further

opportunity shall be given. The cost of Rs.5,000/- may be

disbursed to the complainant on a proper application being filed.

Accordingly, the misc. petition is disposed of. Stay petition is

also decided.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 200-MS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)