Back
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
Dhruv Jalan – Appellant
Versus
Arun Malhotra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he has challenged the impugned order dated 07.06.2022 whereby request of the petitioner to recall the complainant/respondent for cross-examination was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is intentionally delaying the matter. However, learned counsel submits that in order to expedite the trial the request of the petitioner may be allowed subject to heavy cost to be paid for the cross-examination of the complainant.
3. The matter is now stated to be listed on 21.04.2023.
4. In view of the submissions made the petition is disposed of with the following conditions:
1. Let respondent no.2 shall appear before the learned Trial Court on 21.04.2023.
2. Petitioner shall cross-examine the complainant and shall not seek any adjournment and if the learned Trial Court has to adjourn the matter for any reason, only one adjournment should be allowed.
3. The petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the respondent/complainant.
5. In view of the above, the present petition along with the pending application stands disposed of.
The court has the discretion to allow the recall of a witness for cross-examination, but may impose conditions to expedite the trial.
The court emphasized the balance between the accused's right to cross-examination and maintaining judicial efficiency, allowing the cross-examination on the condition of costs.
The court's decision was influenced by the interest of justice, medical certificates, and assurances from the petitioners, leading to the setting aside of impugned orders and granting liberty to cros....
Non-payment of costs for cross-examination leads to forfeiture of participation rights but does not result in automatic dismissal of the suit.
The court balanced the equities by considering the diligent prosecution of the case and the need for travel, setting aside the order subject to the payment of costs and the respondent making herself ....
Right to cross-examination is essential in criminal proceedings, and denial without consideration of circumstances is unjust.
Trial court's discretion to recall witness for incomplete cross-examination upheld if not arbitrary, with enhanced costs.
The court affirmed that a witness may be recalled if essential for just decision, balancing this against the need for diligent participation in proceedings.
The court emphasized the importance of completing cross-examination within the time frame set by the High Court and allowed two additional days for cross-examination as a special case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
