Delhi High Court Upholds Trial Court’s Dismissal of Petition for Cross-Examination Delay: “Sufficient Opportunities Granted, No Cogent Explanation for Delay”

March 1, 2024

tribunal notice bharat College Eviction full Bail Rape RTI Colgate National jurisdiction Bail System Bail Daughter POCSO Transactions Bail tribunal Awards section 8 Disability Statement IAS Child Statement Evidence Parole Equality evidence Divorce Rape Rape Trademark evidence marriage gst Property Merit Answer Key Divorce constitutional Harassment ListCross-Examination Termination Law Law Landlord bail Bail evidence Pregnancy University bank gst bail eviction eviction documents circumstances applicationTenant' Officer business 34 Bail Tax sexual Armed Forces investments service legal child rape property smart jurisdiction property jurisdiction power jurisdiction Absence domain violation Allegations property examination evidence criminal family Notices train principle tax bail club judicial education 148 land dv worldwide property olympics bail trademark

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court dismissed a criminal petition challenging the trial court’s decision to disallow the cross-examination of a complainant. The petitioner, Narinder Pal Verma, had sought to set aside the trial court’s order which had dismissed his application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for the cross-examination of the complainant, citing his counsel’s inability to appear due to personal circumstances.

The key legal point addressed in this judgment revolves around the application of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and the discretionary powers of the court to permit the recall of a witness for cross-examination. The court also examined the legitimacy of repeated adjournments and the non-appearance of the petitioner’s counsel.

The issue at hand was the trial court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s application for cross-examination of the complainant, citing the petitioner’s counsel’s repeated adjournments and non-appearance. The counsel’s absence was attributed to his father’s illness. The petitioner contended that this decision was arbitrary and hindered a just and fair trial.

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, after perusing the records and hearing the arguments, observed that the trial court had provided numerous opportunities for cross-examination since the matter was first listed on 15.05.2019. The case lingered for about four years without cogent explanation for the delay. The judge noted, “There is no dispute with regard to the settled proposition of law but the judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

Concluding the assessment, the High Court found no infirmity in the trial court’s order dated 17.03.2023. The court held that the petitioner had been granted more than enough indulgence by the trial court and there was a lack of a substantial reason for the delay in cross-examination. Consequently, the petition and the pending applications were dismissed.

Date of Decision: 29^th February 2024

Narinder Pal Verma vs Kamal Thapar

Download Judgment