Back
DINESH MEHTA
Sunil Khatik – Appellant
Versus
Lalit Kumar Gorana – Respondent
ORDER :
1. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.09.2022 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, NI Act Cases No. 4, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ' learned trial Court'), whereby the petitioner's application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
2. Narrated briefly the facts germane are that the petitioner is an accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act') filed by the respondent.
3. On 01.04.2022, the learned trial Court has closed petitioner's right to cross-examine the complainant. Thereafter, the present petitioner moved an application on 03.08.2022 under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and prayed that the order dated 01.04.2022 be recalled and/or his application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. be allowed and he be permitted to cross-examine the complainant.
4. The learned trial Court rejected above referred application dated 03.08.2022 by the impugned order while observing that the Court had given last opportunity on 4 occasions (i.e. on 29.01.2021,
The right to cross-examine can be forfeited through negligence, and courts may reject applications to recall such rights if the accused fails to act timely.
The accused's repeated absences and conduct justified the trial Court's decision to close the right to cross-examine the complainant.
The court upheld the dismissal of a petition for failing to cross-examine the complainant, emphasizing the importance of compliance with court orders and procedural timelines.
The right to cross-examine a complainant is essential for a fair trial, and its denial violates principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution.
The doctrine of res judicata applies in criminal proceedings, preventing successive applications for the same relief after a final order.
The court held that a party's negligence in utilizing opportunities for cross-examination justifies the dismissal of subsequent applications for such opportunities.
The court upheld the trial court's decision to close the petitioner's right to cross-examine due to repeated adjournments, emphasizing the need for expeditious proceedings under the Negotiable Instru....
The right to cross-examine is a fundamental part of a fair trial, which must be upheld even in cases involving procedural delays.
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
