Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J.
Prateek @ Rahul Kushwaha – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 1096 of 2026
Decided On : 31-03-2026
(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 231(2) -- Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -- S. 254(3) -- application for deferring cross-examination of witness -- circumstances in which jurisdiction of Court to exercise this discretion can be invoked -- (i) before preparation of case-calendar -- (ii) when deferral is premised on sufficient reasons -- (iii) where specific reasons are given in support of claim that prejudice would be caused since defence strategy would be disclosed -- (iv) only in very exceptional cases, and for reasons to be recorded, but not in routine manner -- (v) however, it is within discretion of Court. (2019) 13 SCC 297, (2015) 3 SCC 220 and AIR 2024 SC 3220 followed.
[Paras 8 & 12
(2) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 231(2) -- Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -- S. 254(3) -- application for deferring cross-examination of witness -- filed after completion of examination-in-chief of prosecutrix -- deferment of cross-examination till completion of examination-in-chief of four witnesses, sought on premise that if cross-examination of the four witnesses is not deferred, defence of petitioner may be disclosed prematurely, which may enable prosecution to fill up lacunae in its case -- no reason assigned to justify prayer of deferment -- no infirmity, illegality or perversity in order dismissing application. (2019) 13 SCC 297, (2015) 3 SCC 220 and AIR 2024 SC 3220 followed. Criminal Revision No. 812 of 2022 decided on 10.3.2022, Criminal Revision No. 1088 of 2023 decided on 7.1.2025 and Misc. Criminal Case No. 56527 of 2025 decided on 15.12.2025 distinguished. 2017 CrLJ 3875 (Del.), (2005) 1 CCrLR (Cal.) 694 and Application u/s. 482 No. 362 of 2025 decided on 17.1.2025 (Luck.) referred to. [Paras 9 & 13
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 231¼2½ & ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk] 2023 & /kkjk 254¼3½ & lk{kh dh çfrijh{kk vkLFkfxr fd, tkus ds fy, vkosnu & ;g foosdkf/kdkj ç;qä djus ds fy, U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk dk vkJ; ftu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fy;k tk ldrk gS -- (i) çdj.k-dSysaMj rS;kj fd, tkus ds iwoZ -- (ii) tc vkLFkxu i;kZIr dkj.kksa ij vk/kkfjr gks -- (iii) tgk¡ bl nkos ds leFkZu esa fofufnZ"V dkj.k fn, x, gksa fd çfrdwy çHkko iM+sxk D;ksafd çfrj{kki{k dh j.kuhfr çdV gks tk,xh -- (iv) vR;f/kd vkiokfnd ekeyksa esa gh] vkSj vfHkfyf[kr fd, tkus okys dkj.kksa ls] ijarq uSfR;d jhfr esa ugha -- (v) rFkkfi] ;g U;k;ky; ds foosdkf/kdkj esa gSA ¼2019½13 ,llhlh 297] ¼2015½ 3 ,llhlh 220 rFkk ,vkbvkj 2024 ,llh 3220 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 12
¼2½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 231¼2½ & ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk] 2023 & /kkjk 254¼3½ & lk{kh dh çfrijh{kk vkLFkfxr fd, tkus ds fy, vkosnu & vfHk;ksD=h dh eq[; ijh{kk iw.kZ gksus ds i'pkr~ çLrqr fd;k x;k & pkj lkf{k;ksa dh eq[; ijh{kk iw.kZ gksus rd çfrijh{kk dk vkLFkxu bl vk/kkj ij bZfIlr fd pkjksa lkf{k;ksa dh çfrijh{kk vkLFkfxr ugha xbZ rks ;kph dh çfrj{kk le;iwoZ çdV gks ldrh gS] ftlls vfHk;kstui{k vius i{kdFku dh dfe;k¡ iwjh dj ldrk gS vkLFkxu dh çkFkZuk U;k;ksfpr Bgjkus ds fy, dksbZ dkj.k ugha fn;k xjZ~;k vkosnu [kkfjt djus ds vkns'k esa dksbZ 'kSfFkY;] voS/krk ;k foi;ZLrrk ughaA ¼2019½13 ,llhlh 297] ¼2015½3 ,llhlh 220 rFkk ,vkbvkj 2024 ,llh 3220 vuqlfjrA nkafMd iqujh{k.k Ø- 812 lu~ 2022 fu.khZr fnukad 10-3-2022] nkafMd iqujh{k.k Ø- 1088 lu~ 2023 fu.khZr fnukad 7-1-2025 rFkk rFkk çdh.kZ nkafMd ekeyk Ø- 56527 lu~ 2025 fu.khZr fnukad 15-12-2025 çHksfnrA 2017 lhvkj,yts 3875 ¼fnYyh½] ¼2005½1 lhlhvkj,yvkj ¼dy-½ 694 rFkk /kkjk 482 ds v/khu vkosnu Ø- 362 lu~ 2025 fu.khZr fnukad 17-1-2025 ¼y[k-½ fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 9 ,oa 13
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the criminal revision and background of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding the deferral of cross-examination under section 231(2) crpc. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. evaluation of trial records and timing of the deferral application. (Para 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 4. principles for exercising discretion in deferring cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. application of settled law to conclude the appropriateness of deferral request. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER :
Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J.
This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner/accused challenging the order dated 02.03.2026 passed by Special Judge SC/ST, Jabalpur, in case no.SC ATR/263/2025 whereby petitioner's application for deferring cross-examination of the witnesses (comes under Section 231(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973/ Section 254(3) of BNSS, 2023), has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon complaint made on 29.07.2025, a FIR at Crime No.301/2025 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Jabalpur, against the petitioner under Section 64(1), 103, 331(8), 115(2), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The allegations made in the FIR pertain to alleged incident involving prosecutrix and subsequent death of her grandmother Smt. Hirabai Choudhary.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the prosecution primarily is based upon statements of witnesses 1 to 4, who belong to same family and are residing in the same house situated at Damoh Naka, Jabalpur. The principal witnesses cited by the prosecution are prosecutrix herself, her younger sister, her mother and Bua. He submits that looking at the prosecution case, chief examination of the said witnesses should be recorded at once/same day and before starting cross-examination by the defence. He submits that on the date of starting chief examination of prosecutrix, the petitioner moved an application on 02.03.2026 making specific prayer for recording chief examination of said four witnesses at once and deferment of their cross-examination till completion of chief examination and if cross-examination is not deferred, the defence of the petitioner may be disclosed prematurely, which may enable the prosecution to fill up lacunae in its case, but the Court below has committed an illegality in dismissing the application by the impugned order. Placing reliance on the decisions in the case of State of Kerala vs. Rasheed , (2019) 13 SCC 297; Order dated 10.03.2022 passed in CRR No.812/2022 in the case of Vishal Jat vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh ; Order dated 07.01.2025 in CRR No.1088/2023 in the case of Pankaj Uday vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ; and Order dated 15.12.2025 in Misc. Criminal Case no.56527/2025 in the case of Bharat Baghel vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others , learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer made by the petitioner for deferring cross-examination ought to have been allowed. With these submissions, he prays for allowing the criminal revision.
4. In turn, learned counsel appearing for the respondents support the impugned order and submit that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and further looking to the averments made in the application and stage of prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, Trial Court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the application. In support of their submissions, they placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Vijay Kumar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2017 Cr.L.J. 3875; Bela Bhattacharya vs. The State of West Bengal and another , (2005) 1 C.Cr.L.R. (Cal) 694; and Rakesh and another vs. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another in Application U/S 482 No. 362 of 2025 dated 17.01.2025 and pray for dismissal of the criminal revision.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties
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
