Prominence Retail and Marketing (P) Ltd v. Sachin Yadav & Anr

ORDER o/"

29.07.2013

¶1By way of this petitionunder Section482 Cr.P.C read with Article 227 ofthe ConstitutionofIndia,the petitionerhas challengedthe impugned order dated 04.05.2013 passed by Ld. CMM, KarkardoomaCourts, in complaint case No.57/2010whereby tlie applicationof petitionerunder Section311oftheCr.P.C.forrecallingCWl for cross-examinationhas been dismissed.

¶2Brieflystatedthe facts leadingto the filingofpresentpetitionarethat as under:- Acomplaintunder Section 138 of NegotiableInstrumentsAct has been filed againstthe petitionerby the respondentherein i.e. complainant before the learned M.M. with the allegations that cheque no.958670 amountingto ? 23,53,287/-dated 02.09.2010drawn upon State Bank of India at its Maharajpur,BharatNagar, GhaziabadBranch,U.P. was issued Page 1 of3 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. by thepetitionercompanyinfavourofrespondent.As perallegationsintl>e complaint,the said chequewas issuedin lieu of his salarydues. Further allegationsarethatthe samewas dishonouredby thebankerofthepetitioner company on 10.09.2010. Thereafter,the respondent/complainantsent a legal notice through his counsel and reply thereto was given by the petitioner. The stand of the petitioneris that the said cheque was never issuedtowardsthe salaryofthe respondent/complainantas is alleged. The standofthe petitioneris thattherewas theftofchequesand someimportant documentsincludingthe letterheads of the companyin the office of the petitionerand the petitionerhas alreadyfiledacomplaintcase no,68/2010 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the respondent/complainantwhich is pendingbeforethe learnedACJ, JuniorDivision,GhaziabadDistrictCourt, U.P. The complaintcaseis pendingdisposalbeforeLd.M.M.

¶3The grievance is that the trial court has not given the petitioner companysufficientopportunityto crossexaminethecomplainanti.e.CW-1.

¶4Learnedcounselappearingfor respondent/complainantwho is present on advance notice has submittedthat learned M.M. has given sufficient opportunityand it is the petitionerwho has beendelayingthe matterand as suchthe learnedM.M. has rightlyclosedhis rightto furthercross-examine CW-1.

¶5Ld.counselfor petitionerhas submittedthat great prejudiceshall be causedto the petitionerifhe is not allowedto completelycrossexaminethe CWl in as muchas the petitionerwillnotbe ableto substantiateitsdefence. Page 2 of3 ..''k N @ Thecounselfor respondentNo.l aftersomeargumentshas submitted thathe has no objectionif one oppormnityis givento petitionerto cross-examineCWl subjectto costs.

¶7Ihave perusedthe record and heard the submissionsmade by the counselfor the parties. The impugnedorderhas seriousconsequencesuponthe petitioneras thesameis deprivinghimofhavingcompleteopportunityto putforwardits defence. Inthe mterestofjusticeand for effectiveadjudicationofmatteron meritstheimpugnedorderis setasidesubjectto costsof?10,000/-. The petitioneris givenone opportunityto crossexamineCWl. The petitionershall appearon 19.08.2013beforethe concernedcourtand shall pay costs of?10,000/-to the respondentno.l. Thereafter,the courtsa givedateas peritsdiaryforcrossexaminationofCWl. Itis madeclearthat petitionershallbegivenonlyoneopportunityto crossexaminetheCWl.

¶10Thepetitionstandsdisposedofaccordingly. Dasti. rPT 1^.4.1106^/2013

(stay) In view of above order, no further orders are required on this application.Thesamestandsdisposedofas infiuctous. VEENA BIRBAL, J JULY 29,2013//srb Page 3 of3

^ ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF PELHI AT NEW DELHI * + PROMINENCERETAILAND MARKETING(P)LTD Petitioner Through;Mr. ManishKapur,Adv. versus SACfflNYADAV&ANR Respondents Through:Counselfor respondentno.l. Ms. JasbirKaur, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLEMS. JUSTICEVEENABIRBAL