SANJIV NAGPAL Vs. ATUL MILLS STORE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A case was initiated on a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act wherein the petitioner was summoned for dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs.1.25 lacs. After appearance of the petitioner, case was fixed for examination of the complainant witnesses. The examination-in-chief of the complainant was submitted by way of affidavit on 12.2.2012 and the case was deferred to 27.1.2012 for cross-examination. Number of opportunities were provided to the petitioner for cross-examination of complainant CW1. Ultimately vide order dated 12.12.2012, when the counsel for the petitioner was not present, cross-examination of CW was ordered to be 'nil'. Petitioner is aggrieved against this order. Hence, this petition.

(2.) In pursuance of the notice of motion, the complainant/respondents appeared and submitted reply denying the averments made in the petition and the main objection of the respondents is that petitioner has been given adequate opportunities to cross-examine the complainant but his counsel did not appear to cross-examine the complainant, so his cross-examination has been correctly shown as 'nil'.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that on CW1-complainant had tendered his affidavit in examination-in-chief and no other witnesses of the respondents were present. For that reason the cross-examination could not be done. He has made reference to the zimni orders of various dates. In zimni order dated 15.2.2012 it is mentioned that no CW is present and last opportunity was granted to the complainant. On 28.2.2012 and 22.3.2012 also no CW was present. On 12.4.2012, case was fixed for cross-examination of complainant/CW1.