1 2025:CGHC:19310 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1194 of 2023 1 - Seema Gyanchandani W/o Shailendra Gyanchandani Aged About 41 Years R/o Pro. Shoe Park, Makai Chowk, Dhamtari Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Mahesh Kumar Ranglani S/o Holaram Ranglani Aged About 54 Years R/o Shanti Colony Chowk, Dhamtari Tahsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 29/04/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the order dated 09-06-2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, in Criminal Revision No. 08 of 2023, whereby the Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the Complaint Case No. 214/2019 filed by the Respondent before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari, under Section 138 of the Negotiable 2 Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “the NI Act”) and facing trial of the case. The complaint case was registered vide order dated 21-02-2019, and the petitioner/accused made her appearance in the proceeding on 24-05-2019, and she has been released on bail. The details of the offence were prepared on 04-10-2019, and the case was fixed for recording of the complainant’s evidence. Despite various opportunities for cross-examination of the complainant’s witnesses, the petitioner/accused failed to cross-examine the complainant’s witnesses and then vide order dated 21-04-2022, her right to cross-examine the witnesses is forfeited. 3. The petitioner/accused had challenged the order dated 21-04-2022 before the learned Revisional Court by filing the Criminal Revision No. 08/2022, which was decided on 01-06-2022 and one opportunity to cross-examine the complainant’s witnesses was granted by the learned revisional court and then the complainant’s witness was cross-examine on 17-06-2022 and the complainant had closed his evidence. 4. From 23-06-2022, the case was fixed for the recording of the defence witness and for one or other reason, the proceeding of the case was adjourned, which continued up to 21-04-2023, and on that day, the right to lead defence evidence was forfeited, and the case was fixed for final argument. The said order dated 21-04-2023 was challenged by the petitioner/accused before the revisional court by filing the Criminal Revision No. 08/2023, which was decided on 09-06-2023, and the criminal revision filed by the petitioner/accused is dismissed. The said order dated 09-06-2023 is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the defence witnesses, which are sought to be produced by the petitioner/accused, are very relevant to prove her defence. Although on the earlier occasion, some adjournment was sought by the petitioner/accused, but the same was with the reason, and the learned trial court may impose costs upon the petitioner/accused and 3 should have granted time to produce the defence witness. The petitioner/accused cannot be deprived of her legal right to lead defence witnesses. The order impugned would prejudice her defence, which is definitely not the object of a fair trial. Forfeiture of her right to lead defence witness would defeat the ends of justice, and the same is violative of principles of natural justice. He would also submit that one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to lead defence witness by imposing cost suitably. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant would opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and submits that despite various opportunities given by the learned trial court, she remains idle and has not produced her evidence. By the conduct of the petitioner/accused, the trial of the case could not proceeded. Earlier also, due to her passive act, her right to cross examination of the complainant witnesses were closed, and by the order of the revisional court, she was permitted to cross-examine the complainant’s witnesses. Therefore, in the circumstances, the order passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court is justified and needs no interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 8. From perusal of the order sheets of the learned trial court, it appears that the petitioner/accused is causing delay in the proceedings of the learned trial court. Earlier, her right to cross-examine the complainant’s witnesses was closed, and she was permitted to cross-examine the complainant’s witnesses by the order dated 01-06-2022. When the case was fixed for the defence witness, she again remained idle and has not produced her evidence on various occasions. Considering her conduct, the learned trial court has forfeited her right to lead the defence witness. 4 9. Be that as it may, the concept of a fair trial and the principles of natural justice cannot be kept aside in the garb of delay in trial. Though there may be some delay but there might be some reason. The opposite party may be compensated for causing the delay in the proceeding unless it is so deliberate. The petitioner/accused has a right to lead defence witnesses in support of her defence, for which she should have been provided the proper opportunity. The learned trial court should decide the prayer made by the petitioner/accused in an objective manner keeping the view the interest of justice. The trial of the case includes the evidence of both sides, and forfeiting the right to lead defence witnesses would be violative of the principles of natural justice. Instead of forfeiting the right to lead defence evidence, this court is of the opinion that one opportunity should be granted to the petitioner/accused to produce her defence witnesses. 10. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order dated 09-06-2023 passed by the learned revisional court arising out of the order dated 21-04-2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 214/2019 is set aside. The petitioner/accused is permitted to lead her defence evidence in the case, subject to payment of the cost of Rs. 3,000/- payable to the complainant. The learned trial court is directed to fix a date for recording evidence of the defence witness and shall record the same. The petitioner/accused shall not take unnecessary adjournment and produce all her defence witnesses on the date so fixed by the learned trial court. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.05.02 20:00:26 +0530