ABDUL WASI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In pursuance of the public notice issued by this court, Dr. Abdul Wasi, the petitioner No.1, and Mr. Vinay Chand Dhandia, the complainant-respondent, are present before this court.

(2.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.9.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and Metropolitan Magistrate No.20, Jaipur Metropolitan by which the learned Magistrate had closed the petitioners' right to cross-examine the complainant-respondent, Vinay Chand Dhandia.

(3.) This case has had a rather chequered history. The petitioners are facing trial for offences under Sections 353, 380 IPC. During the course of trial, testimony of the complainant, Mr. Vinay Chand Dhandia, was recorded on 28.5.2012 as P.W.5. Subsequently, on 12.12.2012 the complainant moved an application before the learned trial court praying that the accused-petitioners should not be permitted to re-cross examine him. However, by order dated 30.1.2013 the said application was dismissed, inter alia on the ground that the cross-examination was incomplete on 31.10.2012 and the cross-examination was merely deferred on that day. Therefore, the accused-petitioners would have the right to cross-examine the complainant. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.1.2013, the complainant-respondent moved a Criminal Misc. Petition before this court. By order dated 10.4.2013, this court directed the learned trial court to permit cross-examination of the complainant on the next date. The learned trial court sent a letter dated 27.4.2013 to this court seeking an extension of time to cross-examine the complainant. By order dated 29.7.2013, this court directed the learned trial court to complete the cross-examination of the complainant on 5.8.2013. Again the learned trial court sent a letter dated 6.8.2013 to this court seeking an extension of time for cross-examination. By order dated 22.8.2013, this court granted one month's time to the learned trial court to complete the cross-examination of the complainant. The order dated 22.8.2013 was received by the learned trial court on 26.8.2013. Thereafter the case was fixed on various occasions for completing the cross-examination. However, despite giving twelve opportunities from 27.8.2013 till 25.8.2013, the complainant was not cross-examined by the counsel for the accused-petitioners. Therefore, by order dated 25.9.2013, the petitioners' right to cross-examination was closed by the learned trial court. Instead of challenging the order dated 25.9.2013, the petitioner merely moved an application before this court for extension of time for cross-examining the complainant. Since it was not brought to the notice of this court that right to cross-examination had already been closed by the learned trial court, by order dated 7.11.2013 this court extended the time limit to cross-examine the complainant by two months. Subsequently, the complainant filed an application before this court for recalling the order dated 7.11.2013 by pointing out to this court that the accused-petitioners have never challenged the order dated 25.9.2013, i.e. the order closing their right to cross-examination and have sought extension of time for cross-examining the complainant. By order dated 7.1.2014, this court recalled its earlier order dated 7.11.2013, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioners had suppressed a cardinal fact in regard to existence of the order dated 25.9.2013 and had secured the order dated 7.11.2013 through dubious means. Now, the present petition has been filed by the accused-petitioners challenging the order dated 25.9.2013.