M/S. Shubham Creations v. M/S. Durga Fab

19# $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2839/2016 M/S. SHUBHAM CREATIONS ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr. Ravi Tikania, Advocate.

versus M/S. DURGA FAB ..... Respondent Represented by:

Mr. Sanjay Sharma and Mr.

Deva Mani Mishra, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 22.08.2016 1.

Aggrieved by the order dated 25th July, 2016 dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the complainant for cross-examination, the petitioner prefers the present petition.

2.

A complaint was filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act being CC No. 526116/16 titled as Durga Fab vs. Shubham Creations. The respondent/complainant was under crossexamination however, on 23rd February, 2016 the same was deferred for the reason that the complainant/respondent did not bring the original documents. 3.

On 16th May, 2019 when the matter was listed since the petitioner was not present his non-bailable warrants were issued for 1st July, 2016 on which date the complainant expressed his inability to produce the original documents. The Court granted opportunity to the petitioner for further cross-examination of the complainant but since the counsel for the petitioner was not present hence evidence of the complainant was closed on 1st July, CRL.M.C. 2839/2016

2016. Hence the present petition.

4.

The impugned order also notices that last and final opportunity was granted to the learned counsel for the accused to cross-examine the complainant on 3rd December, 2015 subject to cost of `1,500/- which cost has not been deposited.

5.

Today before this Court learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over a cost of `1,500/- to the learned counsel for the respondent. As noted above the respondent/complainant was under cross-examination when on 23rd February, 2016 the cross-examination had to be deferred for want of original documents. Due to non-presence of the petitioner non-bailable warrants were issued and on 1st July, 2016 when the complainant stated that he could not produce the original documents, the right of the petitioner to further cross-examine the respondent was closed. Though an alert litigant should have been ready for cross-examination on 1st July, 2016 immediately after the complainant refused to produce the documents however, the present was a case where one opportunity was required to be granted to the petitioner for the reason he would not have known whether the complainant would produce the documents on 1st July, 2016. 6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, subject to the petitioner paying a cost of `2,000/- to the respondent on the next date of hearing one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent/complainant.

7.

Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

AUGUST 22, 2016/'vn'

CRL.M.C. 2839/2016