HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM(M) No. 170/2024 CM No. 4303/2024 Bachan Lal & Ors. …..Petitioner(s) Through: Ms. Surinder Kour, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Suneha Dogra, Advocate. Vs Shivani Saini & Anr. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ajeet Sapolia, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 29.09.2025 1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Bishnah, Jammu whereby right of the petitioners to cross-examine two witnesses of the respondents has been closed and a direction has been issued that only five questions should be asked during cross- examination of respondent No. 1. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that, insofar as the closure of right of the petitioners to cross-examine the two witnesses of the respondents is concerned, the impugned order is not in accordance with law. However, he has submitted that the learned trial Magistrate was compelled to lay down a condition that not more than five questions should be asked during cross-examination of respondent No. 1 because the said respondent had already been subjected to a lengthy cross-examination by learned counsel for the petitioners, which runs into several pages. Sr. No. 35 2 CM(M) No. 170/2024 4. I have gone through the record of the case. From a perusal of the same, it does appear that learned counsel for the petitioners has protracted the cross-examination of respondent No. 1 asking several unrelated questions. Having regard to the fact that the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are summary in nature and do not permit lengthy cross-examination of witnesses, particularly, when all relevant questions have already been put to a witness, during cross-examination, I do not find any error in the order passed by learned trial Magistrate to the extent of curtailing the right of petitioners to further cross-examine the respondent No. 1. However, shutting out the right of the petitioners to cross-examine the other witnesses of the respondents is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice which amounts to denying fair trial to the petitioners. Thus, the order impugned to this extent has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 5. For what has been discussed hereinabove, the impugned order to the extent of closing the right of the petitioners to cross- examine the remaining witnesses of the respondents is set aside and it is directed that the petitioners be permitted to cross-examine the remaining witnesses of the respondents. However, the direction with regard to curtailing the further cross-examination of respondent No. 1 is upheld. 6. The petition stands disposed of, accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 29.09.2025 Shivalee Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Shivalee Khajuria 2025.09.30 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Jammu