2020 (9) TMI 636 - HC - Indian Laws

Application filed belatedly - matter is pending for more than five years - Dishonor of Cheque - application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by petitioner/accused no.3 for recall of complainant for further cross examination was dismissed - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The filing of application at belated stage which does not prejudice to the rights and contention of the petitioner, such application is delay tactics to get the trial delayed.There are no illegality and perversity in the impugned order dated 29.08.2020 passed by the Trial Court - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the complainant for further cross-examination.
2. Introduction of new documents by the complainant at the stage of defense evidence.
3. Dismissal of the petitioner's application for adjournment and further cross-examination.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the complainant for further cross-examination:
The petitioner sought to set aside and quash the order dated 29.08.2020, which dismissed his application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the complainant for further cross-examination. The petitioner argued that several material and necessary questions were left unasked during the initial cross-examination due to the trial court's directive to complete it hastily. The trial court had previously allowed and dismissed multiple applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by both parties. The petitioner contended that new documents introduced by the complainant during the defense evidence stage necessitated further cross-examination.

2. Introduction of new documents by the complainant at the stage of defense evidence:
The complainant introduced new documents, including an appointment letter, bank statements, and a pen drive with recorded conversations, at the defense evidence stage. The petitioner argued that these documents were put to him and his witnesses for the first time during cross-examination, which prejudiced his defense. The trial court recorded the introduction of these documents and noted that most of them pertained to the company or were admitted by the defense witnesses. The petitioner discovered a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed, but argued that the trial court ignored this fact in dismissing his Section 311 Cr.P.C. application.

3. Dismissal of the petitioner's application for adjournment and further cross-examination:
The trial court dismissed the petitioner's application for adjournment and further cross-examination, noting that the application was filed via email on 20.08.2020 and was not forwarded to the complainant for necessary action. The court observed that the petitioner's application was vague and lacked specificity regarding which documents needed to be put to the complainant and their relevance to the defense. The trial court emphasized that the defense had ample opportunities to substantiate its claims but failed to do so. The court also highlighted that the complainant was a senior citizen and the matter had been pending for over five years, warranting expedited proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court's order dated 29.08.2020. The petitioner's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was deemed an attempt to delay the trial. The court dismissed the petition and any pending applications, directing the trial court to expedite the trial and grant only one opportunity for oral arguments, with written submissions to be filed by 10.09.2020. The judgments cited by the petitioner's counsel were found to be unhelpful in the present case.