Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 77 (HP)

Karam Singh v. Bhumi Prakash

2018-01-05

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - Since all the petitions are inter se same parties and arising out of cheques issued qua same transaction, these are being disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties. However, for the sake of clarity, facts from CrMMO No. 211 of 2017 shall be discussed. 2. Being aggrieved with order dated 30.5.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, Distinct Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Revision No. 5/2017, affirming order dated 29.3.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Complaint No. 180- 1/2011 (227-II/2011), whereby application under section 311 CrPC, 1973 having been filed by the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, ''accused'') came to be dismissed, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings filed under section 482 CrPC, 1973 praying therein to set aside orders passed by the learned Courts below and allow the accused to cross-examine the respondent-complainant. Perusal of order dated 29.3.2017, passed by the learned trial Court clearly suggests that repeated attempts were made by the accused to delay the proceedings initiated by respondent-complainant against him under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Before dismissal of application under section 311 CrPC, 1973 which is subject matter before this Court, accused had filed similar application, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.3.2016. Accused being aggrieved with aforesaid order approached court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, the fact remains that same was dismissed. Accused then approached this Court by filing CrMMO No. 43 of 2017, laying therein challenge to order dated 29.11.2016. The same was also dismissed by this Court on 2.3.2017. 3. It clearly emerges from the document available on record that proceedings in the case are complete in all respects and same is listed for pronouncement of judgment. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that since respondent-complainant had executed an agreement with the present petitioner, with regard to transaction, which is subject matter of the case pending under Section 138 of the Act ibid, as such, one opportunity is required to be given to the accused to cross-examine the complainant on this point. 4. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that since respondent-complainant had executed an agreement with the present petitioner, with regard to transaction, which is subject matter of the case pending under Section 138 of the Act ibid, as such, one opportunity is required to be given to the accused to cross-examine the complainant on this point. 4. Aforesaid prayer having been made by the learned counsel representing the petitioner deserves to be rejected on the ground that no explanation worth the name has been rendered on record for not putting this document i.e. agreement to the respondent-complainant during his cross-examination. Neither there is any specific averment in the application that document sought to be put to the complainant was not in his custody nor there is cogent and convincing reason suggestive of the fact that accused was unable to confront the complainant with the aforesaid document during cross-examination. 5. After having perused material available on record, especially impugned order passed by learned Court below, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that petitioner on one pretext or the other has been filing various frivolous applications solely with a view to get the matter delayed, as such, courts below have rightly rejected the application having been filed by the accused under section 311 CrPC, 1973. Otherwise also once document sought to be put to the complainant in his crossexamination, if any, allowed by Court below, was well within the approach of the accused and he failed to confront complainant with the same, no further opportunity can be granted that too at this belated stage as it would amount to filling up of lacuna and would cause great prejudice to the complainant, who has been prosecuting his case under Section 138 of the Act ibid, for realization of his own money for quite considerable time i.e. since the year 2011. 6. Consequently, in view of above, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned orders passed by learned Courts below,(impugned in all the petitions) which appear to be based upon correct appreciation of material available on record as well as law on the point, as such, same are upheld. All the petitions are dismissed being devoid of merit. 7. Consequently, in view of above, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned orders passed by learned Courts below,(impugned in all the petitions) which appear to be based upon correct appreciation of material available on record as well as law on the point, as such, same are upheld. All the petitions are dismissed being devoid of merit. 7. Since parties are litigating since 2011, this Court hopes and trusts that learned trial Court shall make sincere efforts to dispose of the cases expeditiously, preferably within two months from today. 8. Pending applications, in all the petitions stand disposed of. 9. Interim directions, if any, are also vacated.