RAVI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have preferred this petition under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, being aggrieved of the impugned order dtd. 22/2/2022 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh, District-Rajgarh in S.T.No. 339/2021,whereby the right of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses viz; P.w./1 prosecutrix /complainant, Kusumlata, P.w./2 and P.w./3 Sunil has been closed. The petitioners are facing trial under Ss. 377, 498-A, 506 (Part-2) of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Judge of the trial court has passed the aforesaid order dtd. 22/2/2022 thereby reviewing his own order dtd. 21/12/2021, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Sec. 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. for deferring the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses has already been allowed. Counsel has submitted that the aforesaid application was filed on the ground of the witnesses of complainant side are the family members hence they wanted to cross-examine the witnesses after examination in Chief of five of them is recorded before the court which was allowed by the trial court on 21/12/2021,and subsequently, the Examination-in-Chief of four witnesses viz; P.w./1 prosecutrix/complainant, Kusumlata, P.w./2, P.w./3 Sunil and P.w./4 Brijesh were also recorded. However, the 5th witness Deepak has not turned up in the trial court, initially on the ground that he was corona positive but subsequently, he has not appeared before the trial court. Counsel has submitted that now as the said 5th witness Deepak is not turning up in the trial court for his examination in chief, the learned Judge of the trial court has directed the counsel for the petitioners to cross-examine the witnesses who were present in the court viz., P.w./1 prosecutrix/ complainant, Kusumlata, P.w./2 and P.w./3 Sunil and P.w./4 Brijesh and upon counsel's refusal, their right to cross examining the witnesses has been closed. It is submitted that in such circumstances, if the petitioners are forced to cross-examine the witnesses, the very purpose of filing of application under Sec. 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. would be frustrated and would be to the utter prejudice to the petitioners.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer. However, it is not denied that the application filed by the petitioners under Sec. 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. has already been allowed.