Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1701
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
P.S.TEJI, J.
NEELAM MAHAJAN & ANR - Petitioners
Versus
STATE & ORS - Respondents
CRL.M.C. 2242/2014
Decided On : 8-4-2016
Ms. Anu Narula, Mr. Kamal Aurora, Advocates with petitioner in person.
Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with ASI Tej Pal Singh, Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Delhi
The duty of the court to ensure fair trial and reasonable opportunities for accused individuals to represent their case.
Headnote:
Section 311 of Cr.P.C. - Recall of Witnesses - 498A/406 IPC - [Sridhar Das v. State of West Bengal, 1996 Cri.LJ 813; Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and others, 2001 Cri.LJ 128; State of Kerala v. M.M. Manikantan Nair, 2001 Cri.LJ 2346; Jawahar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors, 2006 Cri. LJ 2078] - The court discussed the application of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and the legal principles related to recalling of witnesses. It emphasized the importance of fair trial and the duty of the court to ensure that the principles of natural justice are upheld, providing accused individuals with reasonable opportunities to represent their case. The court concluded that the orders allowing the recall of witnesses were in line with legal provisions and fair trial principles.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought setting aside of the order allowing the recall of witnesses in a case registered under Section 498A/406 of IPC. They argued that the trial was delayed due to frivolous revision petitions and sought to challenge the subsequent orders allowing the recall of witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders allowing the recall of witnesses were in line with legal provisions and fair trial principles. It emphasized the duty of the court to ensure fair trial and reasonable opportunities for accused individuals to represent their case.
Issues: Delay in trial, application of Section 311 of Cr.P.C., fairness of trial proceedings
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the court to ensure fair trial and reasonable opportunities for accused individuals to represent their case. It concluded that the orders allowing the recall of witnesses were in line with legal provisions and fair trial principles.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the orders allowing the recall of witnesses, stating that they were in line with legal provisions and fair trial principles.
P.S. TEJI, J.
1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek setting aside of theorder dated 26.08.2013 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in a case registered as FIR No. 50/1995 under Section 498A/406 of IPC at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 26.08.2013 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in a case registered as FIR No. 50/1995 under Section 498-A/406 of IPC at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Delhi, vide which the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No. 2 to 4 was allowed and they were permitted to cross-examine the petitioner No.1 and 2.
3. The contention of Ms. Anu Narula, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that though the case was received in Court in the year 1995 but the charges could only be framed on 25.02.1999 and due to filing of frivolous revision petitions on behalf of the respondents before the Session Court as well as High Court, the trial could not start till 11.11.2008. It is further submitted on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners that the examination of petitioner No.1 was continued till 03.01.2011.
4. The petitioner No.1 was put to cross-examination on 08.08.2011, but could not be completed due to adjournments sought on behalf of the respondents on one pretext or the other and ultimately on 07.05.2012, when the respondents again sought an adjournment for cross examination, the Trial Court was compelled to pass the order thereby closing the opportunity of cross examination of the petitioner No.1.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the respondents was dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2012 by a reasoned order. Accordingly, PW3 was examined on 03.12.2012, 07.01.2013 and 20.03.2013. For cross examination of PW-3 the respondents sought further time and the Trial Court after recording the conduct of the respondents, closed the opportunity of cross examination of PW-3 vide order dated 28.05.2013.
6. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents had filed another application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 20.07.2013, seeking recall of PW-1 and PW-3 and that too without disclosing the fact that their earlier application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the witnesses had already been dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2012. The said application, however, was allowed vide order dated 26.08.2013.
7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 26.08.2013, the petitioners preferred revision petition before the Sessions Court raising their contention that while allowing the later application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., in fact the Trial Court has reviewed its earlier order dated 09.07.2012, which is gross violation of legal provisions. As per contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, once the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the Trial Court, further application under the same provisions cannot be allowed as it would tantamount to review of the earlier order passed by the same court, which is not permissible under the law.
8. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Revisional Court, without going into depth of the merits of the controversy and even the prima facie question of maintainability of revision petition, the revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sethuraman v. Rajmanickam, 2009 Cri.LJ 2247.
9. In the present petition, before this Court, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate as well as by the Sessions Court and it is submitted that the respondents cannot take any premium on their own wrongs by delaying the trial and then by concealing important factum of their first application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. having been dismiss
