Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CNR No:- DLET-01-006070-2024
Cr Rev. No:- 235/2024
SIDHARTH SHARMA Vs. RBS VISION EXPORT PVT. LTD.
13.02.2025
Present:- Petitioner is present through VC.
Respondent in person along with Ld. Counsel Sh.
Rajeev Kumar Rai.
Trial Court record received.
Arguments on the present revision petition heard.
The petitioner has essentially challenged the
impugned order dated 24.09.2024 vide which an opportunity to
cross-examine complainant stood closed. It is argued by petitioner
that cross-examination of complainant could not be conducted on
24.09.2024 owing to emergency in the family of his main counsel.
It is further argued by petitioner/ accused that if opportunity to
cross-examine complainant is not granted to him, grave injury
would be caused to him as several legal presumptions are already
available to aid the case of complainant and cross-examination of
complainant is essential to arrive at truth and to discredit the
version of respondent/complainant.
Ld. Counsel for respondent/ complainant in all
fairness submits that he has no objection if petitioner/accused is
permitted to cross-examine complainant for adjudication of the
present case on merits, subject to imposition of exemplary cost as
prior conduct of accused is also not worthy for grant of any liberty.
I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the
parties and carefully perused the record.
Contd….2
-- 1 of 3 --
:2:
Cr Rev. No:- 235/2024
SIDHARTH SHARMA Vs. RBS VISION EXPORT PVT. LTD.
Perusal of the trial court record shows that notice
under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed on 04.10.2023 and after
allowing of application under Section 145(2) of NI Act, the matter
was fixed for complainant’s evidence for 08.04.2024.
Adjournment was requested on behalf of petitioner/accused on the
said date as his main counsel was recently engaged in the matter.
Ld. Trial Court gave an opportunity to the petitioner/accused to
cross-examine complainant on next date of hearing i.e. 24.09.2024
subject to cost of Rs. 2,000/-. However, cross-examination was
again not conducted by Ld. Counsel for petitioner/accused on the
said date, owing to which Ld. Trial Court was constrained to close
the right of petitioner/accused to cross-examine the complainant.
No infirmity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error is
thus, found in the impugned order which warrants interference by
this Court. However, considering the totality of circumstances, no
objection given on behalf of respondent/complainant and to ensure
adjudication of the complaint case on merits, this Court deems it
expedient to set-aside the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by Ld.
Trial Court, subject to imposition of cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable by
the petitioner to the complainant before Ld. Trial Court on the date
so fixed for hearing.
It is made clear that only one opportunity shall be
afforded to the petitioner/ accused to cross-examine complainant
and the petitioner/ accused or his Ld. Counsel shall not seek
Contd….3
-- 2 of 3 --
:3:
Cr Rev. No:- 235/2024
SIDHARTH SHARMA Vs. RBS VISION EXPORT PVT. LTD.
adjournment on any count whatsoever, however, Ld. Trial Court is
at liberty to give another date for conclusion of cross-examination
of the respondent/complainant, if it deems fit and proper. The
present Revision Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
Trial Court Record be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court
along with copy of this order.
File be consigned to record room after due
compliance.
(Akash Jain)
ASJ-04, East District
KKD Courts, Delhi: 13.02.2025(G)
-- 3 of 3 --