Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Md. Irfan Khan @ Irfan Khan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No.26 of 2023
Decided on : 02-08-2023
Section 482 - Quashing of Order - Negotiable Instrument Act - Section 138 - 311 Cr.P.C. - 313 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, sought to quash an order allowing the complainant's cross-examination and requiring the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000 to the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no illegality in the order allowing further cross-examination and directed the trial court to fix a date for cross-examination, with consequences for non-compliance.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the order allowing the complainant's cross-examination and the petitioner's objection to it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no illegality in allowing further cross-examination and directed the trial court to ensure the cross-examination takes place.
Final Decision: The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was disposed of with the observation that the trial court should proceed as directed.
JUDGMENT :
By the Court : Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-XXVIII, Ranchi in M.C.A. No.4937 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No.1782 of 2013 by which the learned Magistrate has allowed the prayer of the complainant for his cross-examination by the accused subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- by the complainant to the accused and also ordered that the complainant shall make himself available on next two days from 23.09.2022 when the complainant will be examined as witness and the accused will not be permitted to any adjournment on the said next two days.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is an accused of Complaint Case No.1782 of 2013 involving the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The complainant is the payee of the cheque which was dishonoured and in connection of which the case has been instituted. The complainant examined himself as a witness on 17.02.2022 and some documents were marked Exhibits. But the defence prayed for time to cross-examine the complainant who was examined as C.W.1 on 17.02.2022. On the next date fixed on 05.04.2022, 28.04.2022 and 22.06.2022 the complainant was present. On 05.04.2022, the defence did not cross-examine the complainant even though the complainant was present for his further cross-examination. The case was next fixed to 11.08.2022 for recording of the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On 11.08.2022, the complainant filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for his cross-examination by the accused person which was allowed by the said order dated 23.09.2022 passed in M.C.A. Case No.4937 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No.1782 of 2013.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure for a complaint involving the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is summary triable in nature and ample opportunities to the opposite party No.2/complainant to adduce his evidence in between 2013 to 2022 for long period of nine years has been given but the complainant failed to do so. On 11.08.2022, the statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the case is fixed for examination of the defence witnesses but on 18.08.2022, the opposite party No.2/complainant filed the said application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to give direction to the accused for his cross-examination as a witness which was allowed. It is next submitted that the said order is illegal order. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-XXVIII, Ranchi in M.C.A. No.4937 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No.1782 of 2013, be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 opposes the prayer for quashing the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-XXVIII, Ranchi in M.C.A. No.4937 of 2022 arising out of Complaint Case No.1782 of 2013 and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that in fact the petitioner has not come to court with clean hands and if the cross-examination of the complainant as C.W.1 remains inconclusive and the judgment is passed against him of which there is every possibility, he will take the advantage that without giving any proper opportunity to cross-examine the C.W.1, the judgment has been passed against him and will pray for setting aside the judgment of conviction, if passed against him. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
6. On being asked by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who is the accused, intends to further cross-examine the C.W.1.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going throug
The court's decision emphasized the importance of ensuring fair opportunities for cross-examination and the consequences of non-compliance.
The court may exercise its inherent power to grant a final opportunity for cross-examination to an accused in a criminal trial to ensure fairness and uphold the principles of natural justice, provide....
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 doctrine of res judicata applies in criminal proceedings, preventing successive applications for the same relief after a final order.
Statement of a witness without affording a right to cross -examine and re-examine as per above provision of law cannot be considered to be complete.
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 recall a witness for cross-examination is contingent on demonstrating necessity, especially in summary proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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
