IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. Criminal Revision No. 160 of 2011. Date of decision: 26.08.2011. _______________________________________________________ Vinay Kumar. ….. Petitioner. Versus Dhano Devi & Ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner : Mr. N.S.Chandel,Advocate. For the Respondents : None. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). It has been stated that on 31.05.2011, the statement of respondent No. 1 was recoded as AW-1. In cross-examination, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, has disallowed two questions. The statement of AW-1 has been recorded in Hindi. The nearest translation of the relevant part of the statement of AW-1 is like this:- Q.1. Why the ration card was prepared? This question was disallowed by observing as the same was not relevant in the present case. Q.2. Your husband who has filed petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Hon’ble High Court where it is pending. __________________ Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… This question was also disallowed on the ground that the same was not relevant in the present case. 2. The further grievance raised in the petition is that on 31.05.2011 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded another statement of Smt. Dhano and in that statement bills Ex. PA, Ex.PB, Ex. PC, Ex. PD, Ex. PE, Ex. PF, Ex. PG, Ex. PH and Ex. PJ have been taken on record. At the time of recording this statement, the objection was raised which has also been recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate disallowed aforesaid questions while recording statement of AW-1. Therefore, the questions which have been disallowed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate are nothing, but orders. These orders have not been challenged by the petitioner. The prayer in the petition is that the legality and propriety of the statement recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 31.05.2011 be considered and petitioner be permitted to cross-examine the respondent on the questions so disallowed. Once the orders of disallowing the questions have not been assailed, therefore, those orders cannot be questioned by the petitioner. 4. The perusal of another statement of Smt. Dhano recorded on 31.05.2011 indicates that no opportunity of cross- examination was given to the petitioner when statement of Smt. Dhano was recorded on 31.05.2011 in which documents Ex. PA, Ex.PB, Ex. PC, Ex. PD, Ex. PE, Ex. PF, Ex. PG, Ex. PH and Ex. PJ were taken on record. Since opportunity to cross-examine Smt. …3… Dhano was not given to the petitioner when her second statement was recorded on 31.05.2011, therefore, these documents cannot be read in evidence against the petitioner unless opportunity is given to the petitioner to cross-examine Smt. Dhano. There is no merit in the petition which is disposed of in terms of observations made above. The pending application is also disposed of. August 26, 2011. (Kuldip Singh), ( Krt) Judge.