Back
Imposes One Lakh Costs After Twelve Failed Cross-Examination Attempts Today
In a stern message against the misuse of judicial time, the
has dismissed a
filed by an accused seeking a fresh opportunity to
a complainant in a
. Justice H.P. Sandesh, presiding over the matter, underscored that the accused’s repeated failure to cooperate with the lower court proceedings constituted a
"classic example of
."
A History of Avoidance
The dispute originated from a transaction where the accused, Sri Muddura M. Somanna, allegedly borrowed ₹10 lakh from the complainant, Sri B. Ramesh, to address urgent financial commitments. Following the dishonour of a cheque issued for repayment, a complaint was filed under .
Despite the case spanning from to , the trial phase remained stagnant due to the conduct of the accused. Records presented before the High Court revealed that the complainant was present in court on 12 separate occasions specifically for cross-examination, yet the accused failed to avail these opportunities. Furthermore, the accused had filed exemption applications on 21 distinct hearing dates, effectively stalling the trial for three years.
Arguments and Judicial Scrutiny
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the initial lacked specific details regarding the date of the loan, seeking a to the lower court to rectify the situation. However, the respondent's counsel highlighted that the accused had not only failed to participate in the proceedings but had also initiated complaints against his own legal representative who had been appearing on his behalf.
Justice Sandesh found these justifications insufficient. The Court noted that the accused’s strategy appeared to be aimed at harassment rather than a legitimate legal defense. By dragging out the trial for over three years while the complainant remained ready and available, the accused had demonstrated a deliberate disregard for the judicial process.
Key Observations
During the proceedings, the Court remarked:
"It is a clear case of abuse before the when the complainant was present 12 times and instead of cross-examining the complainant seeks for of the matter before this Court."
Addressing the gravity of the delay, the Court further stated:
"The records disclose that in spite of several opportunities being given, the accused did not ... it is not a case for and also it is a classic example of ."
Final Verdict and Financial Penalty
Refusing to grant any further indulgence, the High Court upheld the passed by the and the . To discourage such dilatory tactics in future litigation, the Court imposed of ₹1,00,000 upon the petitioner.
The order directs the petitioner to deposit this amount with the within two weeks. Failure to comply will result in the initiating recovery proceedings as if the amount were . This ruling serves as a significant precedent for litigants attempting to weaponize delays in cheque dishonour cases, reinforcing that courts will not permit the procedural process to be used as a tool for harassment.
