- (1.) Respondent no.2 Mrs. Veena Solanki got FIR No.13 of 2004 registered at Police Station Lodhi Colony on 13.4.2004. Therein she made allegations against the petitioner Ms.Karuna Singh and five others. On 16.4.2007, i.e., more than three years after the registration of the aforesaid FIR, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner (and five others), under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Though a period of more than five years has elapsed after the filing of the charge-sheet, we are informed, that charges are yet to be framed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South) Saket, New Delhi.
(2.) Soon after the registration of the FIR referred to in the foregoing paragraph, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 24.9.2004. The aforesaid complaint was made against respondent no.2, Mrs.Veena Solanki. Along with her complaint, the petitioner claims to have filed her evidence by way of a personal affidavit. Thereafter on 25.9.2006, the Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act) trying the complaint, allowed respondent no.2 to crossexamine the petitioner. Even after five years, the cross-examination which commenced in 2006 is stated to be continuing. It is submitted, that the cross-examination of the petitioner, at the behest of the respondent no.2, is mainly with reference to FIR No.13 of 2004 registered on 13.4.2004. This, according to the petitioner amounts to a gross abuse of law by respondent no.2, and as such, violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner vested in him under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India. In this behalf, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 contemplate a speedy and swift trail. Referring to the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act it is submitted, that the cross-examination of the petitioner at the hands of respondent no.2 has lasted for more than five years. Denial of a speedy and expeditious trial constitutes an act of harassment of the petitioner, and as such the violation of the petitioner s fundamental rights.
(3.) At the very inception, we expressed our views about the maintainability of the instant writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner to assist us as to whether, it is desirable to entertain a petition like the one in hand, directly before the highest court of the land. In so far as the instant controversy is concerned, it would also be relevant to notice, that in order to facilitate respondent no.2 to cross-examine the petitioner, the Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act) trying the complaint filed by the petitioner, vide an order dated 9.9.2009 summoned the chargesheet filed in Case FIR No.13 of 2004. The petitioner Ms.Karuna Singh, assailed the aforesaid order dated 9.9.2004 in the High Court at Delhi by filing Criminal Misc. Case No.3668 of 2009. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the trial court despite the pendency of Criminal M.C. No.3668 of 2009, allowed respondent no.2 to crossexamine the petitioner, even with reference to the charge-sheet in case FIR No.13 of 2004 (and other documents connected therewith). In so far as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it was the case of the petitioner, that the High Court had failed to take any final decision in the matter. It was also submitted at the behest of the petitioner that the Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act) trying the complaint of the petitioner, had unfairly allowed the petitioner to be cross-examined with reference to the said charge-sheet in Case FIR No.13 of 2004. A submission was also advanced at the behest of the petitioner, that the Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act) had failed to control the crossexamination of the petitioner (at the hands of the respondent no.2). In this behalf, it was pointed out that during the process of cross-examination of the petitioner, the petitioner had invited the attention of the Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act) to a decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in Rajesh Aggarwal vs. State and another etc., 2010 7 AD(Del) 576. Despite the aforesaid, the Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act), while permitting respondent no.2 to cross-examine the petitioner on 2.5.2011, had imposed costs of Rs.20,000/- for wasting court time by making such an intervention. It was also pointed out, that the order dated 2.5.2011 was assailed by the petitioner by filing a writ petition in the High Court at Delhi. It was submitted, that the aforesaid writ petition is pending, wherein the High Court has stayed the operation of the order dated 2.5.2011 in respect of payment of costs imposed on the petitioner. It was submitted, that the High Court has however failed to grant any injunction, staying further cross-examination of the petitioner before the Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act).;