Smt. Sarojini Dhapola vs Kharak Singh Dhapola
2023 Latest Caselaw 950 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  C482 No. 599 of 2023
                                  Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, for the applicant Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.

The opposite party No.2 to the C-482 Application had filed an application to examine the witnesses, for the purposes of deciding the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2019 of 2015, Smt. Sarojini Dhapola Vs. Kharak Singh Dhapola. The said opportunity of the opposite party No.2 was closed by the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital, on the ground, that the opposite party No.1 was making all efforts to delay the proceedings and despite of several opportunities being granted for last more than seven years, she has not availed the same. As such, her application preferred to lead the evidence was rejected.

The said order was put to challenge in Criminal Revision, being Criminal Revision No.125 of 2022, Smt. Sarojini Dhapola Vs. State and another, wherein, the Revisional Court, while reversing the judgment of the Trial Court dated 27th August, 2022, had passed the following orders :- "िव�ान िवचारण �ायालय को आदेिशत िकया जाता है। िक िनगरानीकता� को सा� का पया�� अवसर प्रदान कर� और

यिद िनगरानीकता� �ारा अपने सा� को प्र�ुत करने के िलए पैरवी करने म� भिव� म� कोई चूक का�रत की जाती है तो िव�ान

िवचारण �ायालय अिग्रम आदेश पा�रत करने के िलए �तंत्र होग�।"

While providing an opportunity to the opposite party to lead her evidence, the Revisional Court has imposed certain restrictions, and the apprehension expressed by the applicant' counsel, that she is intentionally delaying the proceedings is overruled by the limitation imposed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, in her impugned judgment of 3rd March, 2023, wherein, it has been provided, that in case, if the opportunity is not availed by the opposite party No.2 to the proceedings to lead the evidence, the Court may proceed in accordance with law. In fact, by the judgement of 3rd March, 2023, the applicant's interest has been safeguarded by the Revisional Court.

Even otherwise, this Court is of the view, that merely because there has been a delay in the proceeding caused by the nefarious activities by either of the parties to the proceedings or merely because of the fact, that there happens to be a direction of the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously, that itself will not mean that the parties to the proceedings would be deprived of their opportunity to lead their respective evidence in the light of the provisions contained under the Cr.P.C., which could still be made available to the parties to the proceedings though with certain restrictions. The restriction has already been imposed by the Revisional Court in the judgment of 3rd March, 2023, and rather the direction given to enable the opposite party No.2 to lead the evidence, in fact, rather goes in favour of the present applicant because at a later stage, she may not have a defence available, that she was deprived to lead evidence while assailing an order, in case, it is rendered against her.

Owing to the aforesaid wider principles, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the C-482 Application. The same is accordingly stand dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) Dated 10.04.2023 Shiv