IMPORTANT POINT
Inherent Powers-Even in absence of a properly framed and properly filed petition under S.482 Cr.P.C without any separate registration thereof, High Court would be entitled to exercise its inherent powers.
Cross Examination – Additional Cross-examination by complainant – Trial Court has no power to allow complainant/victim to cross examine the witness in addition to public prosecutor – However, High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can grant such permission.

A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.

1. By the present petition, petitioner Manjot Singh has put to challenge order dated 29.09.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur in trial of FIR case No.91 dated 28.06.2012 (Annexure P-1), by which the prayer by complainant for cross-examining the defence witness DW-5 Jaspal Singh (respondent No.4 herein) was declined. There is further prayer to pass such order as this Court deems fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances by invoking the inherent power of this Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Facts:

2. A sessions trial arising out of FIR No.91 dated 28.06.2012 registered at police station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur under Sections 302, 307, 323, 325, 506, 148, 149 IPC and 30 of Arms Act, is pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. The prosecution case in the FIR No.91 is that Haqiqat Singh got his statement recorded with the police station regarding murder of his nephew Gurpreet Singh, receipt of injuries by him and the present petitioner Manjot Singh by fire arms, caused by the accused persons. There is a cross-case at the behest of the accused persons in the FIR No.91, registered against Haqiqat Singh and others for commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 307, 326, 324, 427, 148, 149 and 506 IPC vide DDR No.34A dated 02.07.2012, which is also being tried in the same Court. During the trial in FIR No.91, one ASI Gurkirpal Singh was examined as PW-11. In his examination-in-chief he proved various documents prepared by him during the course of investigation and recovery made by him pursuant to the disclosure statements made by the accused persons. Thus in examination-in-chief (Annexure P-3) he deposed as per the prosecution case. When the cross-examination started, he took somersault and in answer to the questions virtually gave clean chit to the accused persons. According to the petitioner, in cross-examination he deposed in such a manner that he had appeared for all intents and purpose as a defence witness for the accused persons and gone his way to help the accused in the said murder case FIR No.91. He went to the extent that the injuries have been caused by the accused in their defence, when that was never the case of the prosecution. The petitioner then filed petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon him for recalling the witness but the trial Court dismissed the said application. The petitioner, therefore, filed Criminal Revision No.4774 of 2016 and this Court vide order dated 16.08.2017 set aside the order made by the trial Court and allowed ASI Gurkirpal Singh to be recalled. The statement of accused No.3-Jaspal Singh @ Pal (respondent No.4 herein) under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 29.11.2016 and another supplementary statement was recorded on 02.12.2016. Accused No.3-Jaspal Singh @ Pal (respondent No.4 herein) wanted himself to be examined as defence witness in the said FIR No.91 and therefore he entered the witness box as DW-5. Needless to say that in the cross-case DDR No.34A the statement of accused No.3-Jaspal Singh was recorded which is to be found in the said DDR case. DW-5-Jaspal Singh was cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who according to the petitioner supported the case of the accused persons. During the cross-examination counsel for the petitioner-complainant requested that he wanted to cross-examine the said witness DW-5 Jaspal Singh on behalf of the complainant. The trial Court heard learned counsel for the rival parties on the issue and passed the impugned order holding that under Section 311 Cr. P. C., the complainant cannot be allowed to cross-examine the witness independent of the public prosecutor.

3. In the alternative the petitioner has invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. in the peculiar facts of the case. Hence, this petition.

4. This Court at the time of admission of the petition on the first date of hearing made order dated 12.10.2017, w