Read Judgment :
The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kanwal Nain Singh Mokha vs Rekha Khuranaconsisting of Justice Asha Menonobserved that although adverse party has a right to put questions that would be beyond the examination-in-chiefto prove their case, the cross-examination cannot encompass questions that are scandalous or intended to cause humiliationto the witness.
Facts
This petition was filed by the petitioner/complainant u/s 482 CrPC being aggrieved by the order/cross-examination.The petitioner had filed the complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I. Act’) against the respondent. The grievance was that as per the order, during examination of Defendant Witness-2 (DW-2), the learned Trial Court disallowed two questions regarding whether any friendly loan had been taken and pendency of any other case, as being irrelevant to the matter in issue.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: The Trial Court had erred in disallowing the two questions and ought to have considered the relevancy of the questions. Law gave a right to the petitioner to put a question for the purposes of impeaching the creditworthiness of the witness DW-2 and thus, the two questions were relevant and be allowed to be put to the witness.
Respondent: The two questions specifically put to the witnesses were vague and the question put was relating “any other transaction” and such a fishing question was not relevant at all. The present petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted regarding the issue of maintainability that it was not precluded in looking into the matter to decide whether there has been any error or perversity in the order under challenge and the nomenclature of the petition would not predicate the exercise of the powers.
It also noted that the law of evidence governs the recording of evidence so that the inquiry is not rendered a meandering exercise, but is focused on a fair decision of the lis.
It further noted 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. Nevertheless, cross-examination cannot be such that has no bearing to the case before the learned Trial Court nor can it be a vexatious or a roving inquiry. The cross-examination cannot encompass questions that are scandalous or intended to cause humiliation to the witness.”
It also noted that merely because certain questions have been put during the cross-examination of the complainant/petitioner is not a reason enough, as relevance is not a question of parity.
It further noted that those two questions were irrelevant to the fact in issue before the learned Trial Court, which was whether the offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act had been committed by the respondent.
Judgment
Since the Court did not find any perversity in the order, the petition was accordingly dismissed.
Case:Kanwal Nain Singh Mokhavs Rekha Khurana
Citation: CRL.M.C. 3223/2022, CRL.M.As. 13558/2022 (for stay)
Bench: Justice Asha Menon
Decided on: 2nd August 2022
Read Judgment :
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments