ORDER (ORAL)

1. This Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 6.1.2021 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Barwah in S.T.No.116/2013 whereby the right of the petitioner/accused to cross examine the Investigating Officer has been closed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner is facing the trial for offence under sections 342, 366, 376 of the IPC in the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Barwah, District Khargone wherein the Investigation Officer, P.W./15 D.K. Tiwari was being examined and in the course of his cross examination on 6.1.2021, a question was asked by the counsel appearing of the petitioner/accused which, according to the learned Judge of the trial Court, was a matter of argument only and was not relevant. Hence, on this question the learned Judge of the trial Court directed the counsel appearing for the petitioner not to ask such irrelevant questions, otherwise his right to cross examine the witness can be closed. However, when the subsequent question was asked by the counsel for the petitioner, which according to the learned Judge was also irrelevant, the learned Jude closed the right of the petitioner/accused to cross examine the witness vide impugned order dated 6.1.2021.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the questions which were put to the Investigating Officer were relevant and even otherwise the learned Judge of the trial Court ought not to have closed the right of the petitioner which is a valuable right and all the more important in a serious offence like section 376 of IPC. Thus, it is submitted the impugned order be quashed and the learned Judge of the trial Court be directed to allow the petitioner to cross examine the Investigating Officer.

4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Judge of trial Court in passing the impugned as it is necessary for the Court also to curb such practice of asking irrelevant questions in the cross examination.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Before dealing with the merits of the case, it would be germane to refer to the question which led to the controversy and Judge's response to the same vide order dated 6.1.2021, it read as under:-

^^13- Á'u& lfpu ds uke ij xkM+h ugha gS\
uksV& eseksjs.Me esa ;g rF; vk;k gS fd xkM+h nhid ds uke ij gSA tks Á'u iwNk x;k og esVj vkWQ vkX;qZesUV gS] esVj vkWQ Økl ,Dtkfeus'k ugha gSA vr% iwNus dh vuqefr ugha nh tkrh lkFk gh cpko i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og lqlaxr Áfrijh{k.k djs] vlaxr Áfrijh{k.k fd, tkus ij Áfrijh{k.k dk volj lekIr fd, tkus ij fopkj fd;k tk,xkA
Á'u& xkM+h lfpu ls rks tIr ugha gqbZ\
uksV& vkns'k if=dk esa of.kZr dkj.k ls Áfrijh{k.k dk volj lekIr fd;k x;kA**

Thereafter the following impugned order was passed by the learned Judge on the same day:-

^^6-1-2021
jkT; }kjk ,thihA
vkjkih lfpu lg] 'ks"k }kjk Jh ';keflag iaokj vf/koDrk mifLFkrA
lk{kh MhŒdsŒ frokjh mifLFkrA lk{kh dks 'kiFk fnykbZ tkdj mldk Áfrijh{k.k ÁkjaHk fd;k x;kA cpko i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us U;k;ky; }kjk fn, x, funsZ'k¨a dk ikyu ugha fd;k vkSj euk djus ds ckotwn vlaxr Á'u fd;k] ftl dkj.k lk{kh MhŒdsŒ frokjh ls cpko i{k dk Áfrijh{k.k dk volj lekIr dj lk{kh dks mUeqDr fd;k x;kA
lk{kh fiUVw vkj{kd T;ksfr] vkj{kd jkeflax dks tfj, leal ryc fd;k tkosA
Ádj.k vfHk;kstu lk{; gsrq fnukad 25-01-2021 dks is'k gksA
iqu'p% fnukad 6-1-2021
jkT; }kjk ,thih mifLFkrA
vkjksih lfpu lg] 'ks"k }kjk Jh ,lŒ,lŒ iaokj vf/koäk mifLFkrA
vkjksih iwtk ckbZ dk gkftjh ekQh vkosnu fujkd`r djus ls NwV x;k gS] ftl dkj.k mldk fujkdj.k fd;k tk jgk gSA
iwtkckbZ dk gkftjh ekQh dk vkosnu is'k] dkj.k mfpr gksus ls ckn fopkj Lohd`r] mifLFkfr tfj, vf/koDrk ekU; dh tkrh gSA
Ádj.k iwoZor vfHk;kstu lk{; gsrq fnukad 25-1-2021 dks is'k gksA**

6. A bare perusal of the afo