* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELID AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2723/2011 SONU @ LALLA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for State CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA ORDER 13.12.2011 This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for passing appropriate directions to learned trial court to permit the petitioner to ask the relevant questions from the prosecution witnesses namely PW1, PW3 and PW4. At the outset, this petition is not maintainable against an interlocutory order and the petition is barred under Section 397(2) Cr.PC being preferred during recording of evidence. The petitioner along with co-accused persons was charged under Section 326/34 IPC in case FIR No.134/2009 registered at Police Station Timar Pur. The prosecution examined PW1, PW3 on 9.5.2011 and PW4 on 14.7.2011. All the aforesaid witnesses were cross examined by learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the learned ASJ has not allowed to conduct effective cross examination by not permitting certain relevant questions to be put to the witnesses in the cross examination. Having gone through the petition and the statement of the aforesaid witnesses and after giving due hearing to the counsel for the petitioner, I find the present petition to be a frivolous one. It is seen that all the aforesaid witnesses were cross examined at length and when certain highly irrelevant questions were being put by the counsel for the petitioner to the witnesses in cross examination, the learned ASJ disallowed some of those questions. It may be noted that cross examination ofPWl Tahir was recorded Signing Date:21.08.2024 17:08:56 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. Signature Not Verified on 10.2.2011 for more than two hours and was again recorded on 9.5.2011. The way in which the cross examination seems to be conducted would reveal that many irrelevant questions were sought to be put to the witnesses. Some of the questions were recorded by the learned ASJ in question answer form. The questions were put with regard to the length of the blade to which witness has replied that the same to be the size of his palm. The counsel for the petitioner insisted on measuring of length of the palm. Similar question as to how the handle of the knife was held by the accused etc or as to whether the accused was caught from the front or behind and other such irrelevant questions were put to the witnesses which seems to have been disallowed by the learned ASJ. Similarly cross examination ofPW2 and PW3 was conducted on behalf of the petitioner at length and it is seen that many irrelevant questions were put to them and the same were disallowed by learned ASJ. The learned ASJ was constrained to observe that in the cross examination of PW4 that the counsel for the petitioner has asked many irrelevant questions and insisted the same to be recorded. Large number of questions were also put as to what was the difference between churi and chaku as regards to edges, their purposes etc. From the way the cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses was conducted and what is further sought to be put to them by way of questionnaire which have been submitted by the petitioner's counsel to this court, it would be seen that the only intention appears to be further cross examine the witnesses to find out some more discrepancies in their statements. The witnesses have already been examined at great length and the questions which are sought to be put further are all irrelevant. Having regard to the foregoing facts and circumstances, the present petition is dismissed being a frivolous one with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited in the learned trial court by the petitioner. M.L. MEHTA,J DECEMBER 13, 2011 rajdass