R.R. CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition seeking quashing of the orders dtd. 1/12/2018 and 16/1/2019, whereby; respectively; the opportunity for the petitioners/accused to cross-examine the witnesses of the complainant was closed; and further; their application moved thereafter, under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C., 1973 for recalling of the complainant and his witnesses for re-examination/cross-examination was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although in the impugned order closing the opportunity for the petitioners to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses, it has been recorded that sufficient opportunities have been granted to the petitioners, however, the absence of the petitioners from conducting cross-examination was not intentional. It is submitted by the counsel that; earlier; the negotiations were going on with the complainant for a possible settlement of the dispute. That had consumed two/three opportunities. Thereafter, just before the last date, when the opportunity to cross-examine was closed by the Court, the petitioner No. 2 met with an accident in which he got 70% disability in his leg. Therefore, he could not appear before the Court. However, since the Court had already passed the order closing the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses, therefore, the petitioners were not left with any alternative but to move an application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C., 1973 for recalling of the complainant and his witnesses for cross-examination.

(3.) The facts as delineated in the impugned order show that the complaint pertains to the year 2017. The complainant has already completed his evidence. The case was being adjourned by the trial Court only for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses. The impugned orders also shows that as many as ten opportunities have been granted to the petitioners for this purpose. The order further shows that the Court had gone to the extent of requesting the counsel for the petitioners to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses, so that the trial could be completed. However, repeatedly, counsel for the petitioners had moved an applications seeking exemption from personal appearance of the petitioners and have chosen not to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses. Still further, once the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses has been closed by the order of the Court, after granting so many opportunities, then moving an application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C., 1973 by any means, cannot be taken as any bona fide exercise on the part of the petitioners.