Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras High Court Ban Junk Food Within 50 Metres Of Schools: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance To Enforce FSSAI Norms, Protect Children From Obesity

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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: 29th February 2024

Narinder Pal Verma vs Kamal Thapar

Latest Legal News