MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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