BRAJARAJ DAS ALIAS DR BRAJA Vs. PYARIMOHAN MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this revision is to the Order Dated 17.05.2007 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. No. 2855 of 2005 partly allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by confining the further cross -examination to certain questionnaire, thereby disallowing the rest of the questionnaire.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Opposite Party No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Opposite Party') filed a complaint case against the Petitioner and the proforma Opposite Parties in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, which was registered as I.C.C. Case No. 2855 of 2005. In the said case, the complainant examined himself and three others as witnesses. The Petitioner filed a petition on 05.03.2007 to recall the complainant for further cross -examination, which was allowed subject to cost of Rs. 2000 / -.On 24.07.2007, the Petitioner paid the cost to the complainant and filed a further petition to allow him to put some additional questions to the complainant. But the Learned S.D.J.M. partly allowed the same with an observation that all the questions set out in the petition are not relevant except question No. 6. Against that order, this revision has been preferred.

(3.) MR . Mohanty, Learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party contended that this revision is not maintainable and has been filed in order to prolong the proceeding. He also contended that different petitions have been filed at different times with an intention of delaying the trial and obstructing the justice. He further contended that the impugned order was passed on the third application filed by the Petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and the Learned S.D.J.M. has allowed the same in part by permitting the Petitioner to cross -examine in respect of a particular question. The Learned S.D.J.M. has also assigned reason while passing the said order. The order passed by the Trial Court was accepted by the Petitioner without protest and on different occasions this Petitioner wanted to. stall the proceeding by filing frivolous petitions, which should not be encouraged. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the decisions in Prakash Ch. Pradhan v. State of Orissa (2004) 2 OLR 553; and Kailash Sahu v. Basanta Kumari Dei 1992 Crl. L. J. 1918.