HARDAYAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
State of Uttarakhand and another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) By means of this petition moved under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the applicant/petitioner Hardayal Singh seeks to allow the application dated 19.01.2013 moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and quash the order dated 11.02.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, U.S.Nagar in Misc. Criminal Revision No. 22 of 2013 arising out of order passed by learned Magistrate under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on 19.01.2013 in Criminal Case No. 3087 of 2010 State vs. Mandeep Kaur and another under section 294 IPC, P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
(2.) The accused Hardayal Singh was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 294 IPC. When the prosecution was called upon to examine the witnesses, PW 1 S.I., R. K. Shaklani appeared before the Court. His examination-in-chief was conducted but he was not cross- examined on behalf of the accused, in as much as, an application for seeking adjournment was moved by accused, which was rejected by the learned Magistrate, expressing anxiety that this matter was pending before the Court since 22.06.2007. Learned Magistrate has passed a detailed order expressing concern over the pendency of this old case. This Court is in complete agreement with the anxiety expressed by the learned Magistrate that old cases should be decided on top priority. A criminal revision was preferred against the said order dated 19.01.2013, which revision was dismissed summarily in view of the fact that no revision was maintainable against the interlocutory order. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the accused-applicant.
(3.) Knowing fully well that the pending matter pertains to the year 2007, the accused chose not to cross-examine the PW 1 SI R.K.Shaklani and moved application for adjournment. Such a move is deprecated. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to see that complete justice should be done and therefore, this Court visualises no harm, if one and final opportunity is given to the accused to cross-examine SI R.K.Shaklani. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is therefore allowed. The Impugned order dated 9th January, 2013 is hereby set aside to pave way for the applicant to move a fresh application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for an opportunity to cross-examine PW 1 R.K.Shaklani. The learned Magistrate shall fix up a date as convenient to the prosecution as well as to the accused and grant an opportunity to accused to cross-examine such witness. It is made clear that only one opportunity shall be granted to the accused to cross-examine such witness, in as much as, the matter is pending since 2007. Old cases should be decided on priority basis and that is precisely the reason as to why the last opportunity is provided to the accused/applicant to cross examine PW 1.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.