IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 8 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 53743 of 2025 BRAJESH JATAV Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Rajeev Upadhyay - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Samar Ghuraiya - DGA for the respondent/State.

ORDER The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra District Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.73/2024, whereby petitioner's right of cross-examination of Kamalkishore (PW/4) has been closed.

2. The petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Sections 302, 201 of IPC, which is registered as criminal case No.800/2024 before the Judicial Magsitrate First Class, Dabra, District Gwalior. On 20.12.2024, trial was fixed for statement of prosecution witness and though Kamalkishore (PW/4) was present, but since counsel for the petitioner/accused was not present for cross examination, learned Trial Court closed the right of the petitioner/accused to cross exam Kamalkishore (PW/4) by stating that despite granting repeated adjournments to the Advocate of the accused, the Advocate did not appear before the Court, therefore, the opportunity for cross-examination of the present witness by the accused’s advocate, Shri K.P.S. Segar, is hereby closed. Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated

20.12.2024 preferred the present petition under Section 482 of Crpc.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/State opposed the prayer and stated that despite repeated opportunities counsel for the petitioner/accused has not present before the trial Court to cross-examine the said witness, therefore, the right to cross examination has rightly been closed.

4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the impugned order, this Court finds that on the date on which (PW-4) Kamalkishore appeared before the Trial Court, the right of cross examination of the accused/petitioner was closed which is the interest of justice should not have been closed, as for the fault of the counsel, the litigant should not be placed in a disadvantageous situation.

5. Resultantly, without adverting to the merits of the case, this petition stands disposed off, while allowing the present petition preferred under Section 528 of BNSS with a direction to the trial court that one last opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the witness Kamalkishore (PW/4). The counsel, who though was engaged by the accused/petitioner and was having his Vakalatnama on record, had chosen not to appear for cross of the witness which had resulted in closure of a valuable right of the petitioner/accused, is directed to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner. The learned Trial Court is directed to recover the said amount from the counsel, if not paid. Said opportunity shall be availed by the petitioner on the date said witness is present/called before the trial Court.

No further opportunity, shall be granted to the petitioner thereafter.

6. With the aforesaid direction, petition stands disposed off.

E-copy/certified copy as per rules.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)

JUDGE neetu