Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 947 (RAJ)

Gurucharan Singh S/o Shri Gopal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2024-07-09

ARUN MONGA

body2024
ORDER : 1. Petitioner, an under trial, is before this Court seeking quashing of revision order dated 27.02.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Jodhpur in Criminal Revision No. 51/2022 Gurucharn Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. whereby, an order passed by Additional Metropolitan Magistrate No. 9 Jodhpur declining to re-call the complainant for cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been upheld. 2. Heard. 3. Having perused the case file, I find no grounds to interfere for the reasons stated hereinafter. 4. It is borne out that ostensible cause to recall the complainant and bank manager as witnesses is that there is a discrepancy in the date on the disputed cheque. However, the complainant was not cross-examined by the petitioner’s advocate to ascertain as to who caused this discrepancy. Furthermore, the complainant allegedly has not provided statements from the bank authorities to support his complaint. 5. The reasons/grounds taken by the petitioner are frivoulous, to say the least. 6. It has been rightly noted by revision court that the opportunity for cross-examination was adequately provided. Cross-examination was closed way back on 08.04.2015. Subsequently, a re-examination opportunity was yet again granted on 20.07.2016. On 10.05.2018, after the completion of cross-examination, the case file was set for the statement of the accused. 7. Nearly four years later, on 10.10.2022, the accused/petitioner filed a highly belated application under section 311 ibid before the trial court after a lapse of 4 years. 8. That apart, even on merits, no defense of the kind has been taken by the petitioner so as to summon the Manager of the Bank to be examined on the proposed overwriting or non-fixation of the seal of the bank. 9. In the premise, I am of the view that the application filed by the accused is/was nothing but a dilatory tactics to delay the Court proceedings. The application has been rightly dismissed by both the learned Courts. 10. Instant petition is thus also dismissed. 11. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of.