KANWAL RAJ SACHDEVA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions have been filed seeking to challenge the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar dated 06.06.2017 whereby the application filed on behalf of the prosecution for examining Ms.Upasna, one of the witnesses, through video conferencing has been declined. Aggrieved against the said order, the State being the Prosecutor as well as the complainant have preferred these two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.08 dated 26.05.2012 came to be registered under Section 406, 498-A at Police Station NRI Jalandhar City, District Jalandhar by Kanwal Raj Sachdeva s/o Sh.Tilak Raj Sachdeva stating that his daughter Upasna had been married to one Rocky Bhalla on 23.11.2009 according to the Hindu rights and ceremonies. She had been tortured by her in-laws on account of insufficient dowry and that she was compelled to bring more dowry than what had been given. There are also allegations that the dowry/ Stridhan articles that had been given at the time of marriage, were misappropriated by the family members of her husband. During the pendency of the trial before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar, an application was filed to summon Ms.Upasna as witness which application was allowed. However, since Ms.Upasna was a resident of Australia and was unable to visit India, an application was preferred seeking liberty for her to appear as witness through video conferencing which stands rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant Kanwal Raj Sachdeva would contend that the order as passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar would not be sustainable in the light of the judgement rendered in State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr.Praful B. Desai and another, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 770 wherein, the Supreme Court in a particular matter had permitted recording of evidence by way of video conferencing. It is also submitted that the principle as settled has also been followed by our own High Court. It is argued that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents herein since ample opportunity would be allowed to the respondents-accused to cross examine the witness apart from putting any document to her that they choose to do so. A similar argument has been raised by the State counsel in the petition.