t I 1 39. ^F',r I I XF IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI I +CRL.M.C.913/2ot1andCrl.M.A.3400-340t120Lt ANIL KUMAR ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Harinath Ram, Advocate versus STATE "" ResPondent Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the State CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER o/o 2t.03.2011 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for setting aside the order dated 17.O3.2011 passed by the learned ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in a case arising out of FIR No. 5LB/2007 lodged under Sections 376/506 IPC, registered with Police Station: Bhajanpura. 2. Counsel for the petitioner states that vide order dated 17.03.20Lt, the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 Cr.PC for recalling of the prosecutrix (PW-4), her father (PW-5) and the doctor (PW-3), was. dismissed on the ground that the same was devoid of merits. While dismissing the said application, last and final opportunity was granted to the petitioner to address arguments in the matter and the case is listed today before the Sessions Court. CRL.M.C. 973/2077 Page 7 of 3 -.\{ Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified I.J I 3. Today, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the learned ASJ erred in passing the order dated L7.03.2011 inasmuch as the counsel was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the aforesaid witnesses. Pertinently, as per the list of dates and events filed in the present case, the examination-in-chief and cross- examination of PW-3 took place tWo years ago, on 25.03.2009, the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of PW-4 took place over year dgo, on O2.O2.2OLO and the cross-examination of PW-5 was completed on 24.0I.20Lt. It is, therefore, apparent that ample opportunity was available to the petitioner/accused to seek further cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses, if he so desired, within a reasonable time of the completion of their cross-examination and for cogent reasons. But for reasons best known to the petitioner, he did not file any such application at the relevant time. Now, on the eve of the date fixed before the trial court for final arguments, an application for cross-examining the aforesaid three witnesses was filed. 4. In the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner states that he was indisposed on the last date of hearing before the court below, due to which he could not file an application under Section 311 Cr.PC well in time for seeking to cross-examine the aforesaid witnesses. There is not a whisper to the said effect in the CRL.M.C. 973/2077 Page 2 of 3 t \J ) body of the petition, nor is there any medical certificate of the counsel placed on the record to substantiate the said submission. The application filed by the petitioner for recalling PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 is also quite vague and ambiguous. Further, no cogent reason is furnished in the application for recalling the aforesaid witnesses in the witness box. This Court is inclined to agree with the Session Court that the application in question appears to be a dilatory tactic adopted by the petitioner. 5. There is no justification for interfering in the impugned order dated 17.03.20tt. The petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. MARCH rkb 2L, 20rr HIMA KOHLI,J CRL.M.C. 973/2077 Page 3 of 3 {