9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfined to the facts to which the witness testified in his examination-in-chief. Thus, it is clear that both examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts. The reason why cross-examination is not confined to the facts to which the witnesses testified is obvious. The witness who is examined-in-chief is from the side of the party who has called him. Therefore, his testimony would be, in-chief relating to the case of that party. But since the opposite side is also required to prove their case, the right has been given to such adverse party to put questions that would be beyond the examination-in-chief - The cross-examination cannot encompass questions that are scandalous or intended to cause humiliation to the witness, on the plea that the questions can go beyond the examination-in-chief. While there is a right to ask questions of a witness to impeach his creditworthiness, it cannot descend to harassment and humiliation of the witness. The learned Trial Court disallowed the questions being vague and having no relevancy to the transaction in question. In the petition, an attempt has been made to explain why the questions were relevant at page 21. In para 4(q) it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner for a period of two months to the respondent, who was then in dire need of money. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defence raised by the respondent, recorded in the notice served to her under Section 215 Cr.P.C., was that the loan had been taken by her son and she had no legal liability in the matter. She admitted her signatures on the cheque. Her stand was that the cheque had been obtained from her as her son Vikas Khurana was in dire need of money and that too in the sum of Rs.2 Lakhs for a period of six months. Therefore, the cheque in question had been misused. 5. In that context, according to the petitioner, the complainant had been asked questions in this regard during his cross-examination (placed on the e-file at pages 70 to 79). Therefore, the petitioner/complainant be given the opportunity to ask the questions and further cross-examine the son of the respondent, who was examined as DW-2. 6. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the relevancy of the question in terms of the Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Since the matter related to the claim of the accused, therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce Act, 1872). (ii) Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places (see : Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872). (iii) Facts which are the occasion, cause, or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant (see : Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872). (iv) Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact, including conduct (see : Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872). (v) Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beyond the examination-in-chief. While there is a right to ask questions of a witness to impeach his creditworthiness, it cannot descend to harassment and humiliation of the witness. 15. Thus, the learned Trial Judge has to keep a close watch on the examination of a witness, whether during examination-in-chief or cross-examination and even during re-examination, when permitted. Only such questions must be allowed which are relevant to the matter at hand and to the rival stands, elucidating or disproving the rival cases. Where the court comes to a conclusion that a question, particularly, in cross-examination is irrelevant or prompted by such motives such as harassment or annoyance to the witness or to delay the conclusion of the cross-examination of the witnesses by embarking on a rambling course, the Trial Judge is well empowered to put an end to such questioning. 16. The question at hand is whether the Trial Court has rightly disallowed the questions. To answer that question, the petitioner ought to have established how the questions were relevant. Merely because certain questions have been put during the cross-examination of the complainant/petitioner is not a reason enoug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent who had borrowed from him and the cheque in question has been issued by her towards repayment. Whatever be the defence taken by the respondent, the petitioner would have to prove his case. The respondent too would have to prove that she had no liability when she had issued the cheque. Whether the respondent or the wife of DW-2 had taken a friendly loan from any other persons is absolutely irrelevant as an answer either way would not help in arriving at a decision in the case at hand. The pendency of another case titled Parminder Singh Bindra Vs. Jayti Khurana has no connection with the complaint case that the petitioner has filed, merely because Jayti Khurana is the wife of DW-2. The pendency of another case would hardly be relevant to the fact in issue before the learned Trial Court, which is whether the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been committed by the respondent. 19. This Court is of the considered view that there is no perversity in the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate disallowing these two questions. Neither has it resulted in any miscarriage of justice. 20. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
