KAVITA BHATIA Vs. SHANTI LAL JAIN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the order dated 05.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as "the revisional court") in Criminal Revision Petition No.(305/2014) 1/2015, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. In the said revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.10.2014 passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Criminal Original Case No. 2092/2014, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311, Cr. P. C. with a prayer for recalling the complainant for the purpose of further cross-examination has been rejected.

(2.) The trial court has taken into consideration the fact that the cross-examination of the complainant was carried out by the counsel for the petitioner on 06.12.2012 in detail thereafter statements of the petitioner-accused were recorded on 18.04.2013 and, thereafter, he was granted several opportunities to produce the defence evidence. Ultimatly, on 25.09.2013, last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to produce the defence evidence at the cost of Rs. 500/- and the matter was fixed on 24.10.2013. However, on 24.10.2013 the petitioner instead of producing defence evidence has filed application under Section 311, Cr. P. C. with a prayer for recalling the complainant for the purpose of further cross- examination. The trial court has dismissed the application while observing that the complainant was cross-examined by counsel for the petitioner in detail and thereafter she was granted several opportunities to produce the defence evidence and when the last opportunity was granted to her, she has moved an application only with the intention to delay the matter.

(3.) The revisional court after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case has observed that there is no iota of evidence about any notice sent by the petitioner to the complainant. It is also observed that the petitioner has conducted very detailed cross- examination of the complainant and in that cross-examination no new fact came in existence. It is also observed that all the facts of the case were in knowledge of the petitioner at the time of the cross-examination and, therefore, no case for recalling the complainant for the purpose of further cross-examination is made out. The revisional court also observed that when the complainant has already been cross-examined in detail and no new fact came in existence after the cross-examination, then allowing an application for further cross examination of the complainant would amount to an encouragement to delaying tactics.