MP High Court upholds closure of right to cross-examine prosecutrix due to usage of intentional delay tactics to harass her

Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), challenging the Additional Sessions Judge’s order dated 06-03-2024 which closed the applicant’s right to cross-examine the prosecutrix due to repeated adjournment requests, a single-judge bench of G. S. Ahluwalia, J., denied the application to reopen cross-examination due to the applicant’s repeated delays and refusal to pay witness costs.

In the instant matter, the prosecutrix appeared for examination on 09-2-2024, where her examination-in-chief was completed. The applicant’s counsel requested to defer cross-examination, citing insufficient preparation. This request was granted, and the case was adjourned to 23-02-2024.

On 06-03-2024, the prosecutrix was present, and the applicant’s newly appointed counsel again requested an adjournment to cross-examine the prosecutrix. When the court requested the applicant to bear the witness’s costs, the counsel refused, leading the trial court to close the applicant’s right to cross-examine.

The main issue in the present case is whether the trial court’s closure of the applicant’s right to cross-examine the prosecutrix due to repeated adjournment requests was justified. The applicant argued that the denial to cross-examination would cause irreparable harm and sought another opportunity for cross-examination, while acknowledging that prior conduct was not ideal. However, the respondent opposed the application and asserted that the applicant’s actions demonstrated an intent to delay and harass the prosecutrix.

The Court considered Akash Batham v. Santoshi,¹ where it was held that witness adjournments must be grounded on legitimate reasons and repeated adjournment requests, especially when witnesses are present, suggest an intent to delay; Kuldeep Singh Tomar v. State of M.P., 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1675, where it was held that day-to-day trials should be prioritized as adjournments are exceptions and Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, (1997) 4 SCC 241, where the Supreme Court emphasized the need to expedite criminal trials and prevent practices that delay justice or intimidate witnesses.

The Court observed that the applicant’s counsel repeatedly requested adjournments even when the prosecutrix was present and without valid reasons. The Court found that the applicant’s conduct indicated an intention to delay the proceedings and harass the prosecutrix. The Court asserted that mere change of counsel did not justify an adjournment, as the applicant knew the hearing date in advance.

The Court asserted that the applicant’s actions led to their current situation, and thus held that the applicant accountable for the consequences. The Court dismissed the application and held that the trial court’s decision to close the right of cross-examination was appropriate given the applicant’s behavior.

[Tulsi Ram Lodhi v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 6587]

Advocates who appeared in this case:

Shri Pramendra Singh Thakur, Counsel for the Applicant

Shri Dilip Parihar, Counsel for the Respondent/State