Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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