ORDER : P.S. Rana, J. Present petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing order dated 17.4.2015, 18.4.2015 and 21.4.2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nalagarh District Solan in criminal case No. 101/2 of 2011 title State of H.P. vs. Hem Chand whereby accused did not cross examine witnesses of prosecution despite opportunity granted by learned Trial Court. Brief facts of the case 2. Complainant Mr. M.K. Seth M/s Innovation Textile Private Limited New Delhi filed FIR No. 15 dated 23.1.2010 alleging that H.C. Sharma and Anmol Sharma are father and son respectively and complainant was in need of land for setting up a textile industry and complainant was searching land in Himachal Pradesh. It is alleged that complainant came in contact with H.C. Sharma and Anmol Sharma and they told the complainant that they are owners of 61 bighas and 5 biswas of land situated at village Bater, P.O. Basti. It is alleged that H.C. Sharma and Anmol Sharma claimed that they are influenced persons in Himachal Pradesh and they would get all necessary permissions for sale from the Government of H.P. to complainant as required under Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972. It is alleged that complainant agreed to purchase the property and agreement to sell immovable land dated 28.9.2006 was executed between complainant and H.C. Sharma accused in consideration amount of Rs.73500000/- (Rupees seven crore thirty five lac). It is alleged that earnest money of sale was paid by complainant to H.C. Sharma accused to the tune of Rs.22050000/- (Rupees two crore twenty lac fifty thousand) by way of cheque No. 297051 dated 28.9.2006 drawn on HDFC Bank New Delhi. It is alleged that H.C. Sharma accused represented that immovable property is free from all encumbrances. It is alleged that it was agreed inter se the parties that permission would be obtained within 150 days and if permission would not be obtained then H.C. Sharma accused would refund the entire amount of Rs.2205000/- (Rupees two crore twenty lac fifty thousand) to complainant without any delay. It is alleged that complainant moved the Government for permission but accused persons did not cooperate after the receipt of earnest money of sale. It is alleged that complainant moved the Government for permission but accused persons did not cooperate after the receipt of earnest money of sale. It is alleged that immovable property involved in sale agreement was already mortgaged with State Bank of India Branch at Sai road Baddi Tehsil Nalagarh prior to agreement of sale in lieu of loan obtained by accused H.C. Sharma from State Bank of India to the tune of Rs.12.40 crore. It is alleged that loan which accused persons obtained from State Bank of India became NPA due to defaults of accused H.C. Sharma. Investigation was completed and thereafter investigation report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 was filed before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nalagarh District Solan H.P. against H.C. Sharma. It was submitted in report filed under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure that no criminal offence was committed by Anmol Sharma. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioner and Court also perused the entire record carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination in this criminal revision petition:- Point No.1 Whether petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be accepted on the grounds mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? Point No. 2 Final Order. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons 5. It is proved on record that on 17.4.2015 learned Trial Court recorded statements of PW1 Veer Kumar, PW2 Bhalchander Singh Gautam and PW3 Rakesh Bajaj. It is proved on record that accused persons did not cross examine PW1 despite opportunity granted and cross examination of PW2 was deferred for next day and cross examination of PW3 was also deferred for next day because Court time was over. It is proved on record that thereafter PW2 appeared on next day before learned Trial Court but accused did not cross examine the witnesses despite opportunity granted by learned Trial Court on 18.4.2015. It is also proved on record that PW3 also appeared on 18.4.2015 but accused did not cross examine the witness despite opportunity granted by learned Trial Court. It is proved on record that even on 18.4.2015 examination in chief of PW4 Sanjeev was recorded by learned Trial Court and accused person did not cross examine the witness despite opportunity granted. It is also proved on record that PW3 also appeared on 18.4.2015 but accused did not cross examine the witness despite opportunity granted by learned Trial Court. It is proved on record that even on 18.4.2015 examination in chief of PW4 Sanjeev was recorded by learned Trial Court and accused person did not cross examine the witness despite opportunity granted. It is proved on record that examination in chief of PW5 namely Surinder Kumar was recorded on 21.4.2015 by learned Trial Court and accused did not cross-examine the witness despite opportunity granted. 6. It is proved on record that accused has engaged defence Advocate. It is well settled law that accused has legal right to cross examine the witnesses as per Indian Evidence Act 1872. 7. Plea of petitioner that revision was filed and record was summoned by High Court and petitioner was not under legal obligation to cross examine the witness is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that mere filing of revision petition and summoning of record by High Court would not mean that proceedings of learned Trial Court would stay automatically unless positive order is passed by High Court for stay of proceedings of learned Trial Court. High Court of H.P. did not pass any order regarding stay of proceedings of learned Trial Court. 8. In criminal case right of cross examination is legal right of accused. In view of the fact that accused has engaged defence Advocate in present case but he did not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses present in Court despite opportunity granted by learned Trial Court it is expedient in the ends of justice to give chance to accused persons to cross-examine the witnesses. Point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2 (Final Order) 9. In view of findings on point No.1 above petition is partly allowed. Opportunity is granted to accused to cross examine PWs 1 to 5 subject to payment of costs to the tune of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only). Orders of learned Trial Court dated 17.4.2015, 18.4.2015 and 21.4.2015 modified to this extent only. Observations will not affect merits of the case in any manner and will be strictly confined for disposal of petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. File of learned Trial Court along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith. Orders of learned Trial Court dated 17.4.2015, 18.4.2015 and 21.4.2015 modified to this extent only. Observations will not affect merits of the case in any manner and will be strictly confined for disposal of petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. File of learned Trial Court along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before learned Trial Court on 21.6.2016. Petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous applications stands disposed of.