KARUNA SINGH v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & Anr.

Through Mr. F.S. Chauhan, Advocate versus STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. S.S. Jauhar, Advocate for resp. No.2 % Date of Decision : 21st November, 2012 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN MANMOHAN, J : (ORAL) J U D G M E N T

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. challenging the order dated 9th September, 2009 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate whereby at the instance of the respondent-accused, the charge-sheet in FIR No. 13 of 2004 had been summoned and cross-examination of the petitioner had been deferred.

Mr. F.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the impugned order, the trial court has permitted cross-examination of the petitioner beyond the time period stipulated by this Court in its order dated 21st July, 2009 in W.P.(Crl.) 332/2009. He also submits that due to summoning of the aforesaid charge-sheet, the petitioner would be compelled CRL.M.C. 3668/2009 to disclose her own defence in FIR No. 13 of 2004. Mr. F.S. Chauhan, learned counsel repeatedly emphasized that by summoning the aforesaid charge-sheet, the petitioner’s right to silence in FIR No. 13 of 2004 has been violated.

On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Jauhar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 points out that by another order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 5th October, 2012 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 664/2011, the learned Judge has upheld the order of the trial court by virtue of which ‘ 20,000/- costs had been imposed upon the petitioner for deliberately delaying her own cross-examination though a specific time period had been stipulated by this Court vide order dated 21st July, 2009 in W.P.(Crl.) 332/2009.

Mr. S.S. Jauhar, learned counsel also states that during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 31/2012 before the Supreme Court challenging the very same impugned order as in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 664/2011. He points out that the Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition as gross abuse of process of Court with cost of Rs. 20,000/-.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the trial court by summoning the charge-sheet in FIR No. 13 of 2004 has not violated the petitioner’s constitutional right of silence.

Undoubtedly, Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India confers the right of silence upon every accused. In the event during cross-examination, any question is put by the respondent-accused which violates the right of silence incorporated in Article 20(3) and as upheld by the Supreme Court in Nandini Satpathy vs. P.L. Dani & Anr. reported at (1978) 2 SCC 424, this Court has no doubt that the trial court would not allow such a question. But CRL.M.C. 3668/2009 at this stage, it cannot be said that by just summoning the original charge- sheet in FIR No. 13 of 2004, the petitioner’s Fundamental Right has been violated.