Mere Change Of Counsel Cannot Be A Ground For Adjournment: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that mere change of counsel cannot be a ground for adjournment.

The Court upheld the Order of the Trial Court by which it closed the right of the accused to cross-examine the victim, saying that the only intention of the accused was to harass the victim by continuously seeking adjournments.

The Court was deciding a miscellaneous criminal case in which the Application was filed against the Sessions Judge’s Order.

A Single Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia said, “… the only intention of the applicant was to somehow harass the prosecutrix by continuously seeking adjournments. Such delaying tactics, which was being adopted by the applicant, cannot be approved. Furthermore, the change of counsel cannot be a ground for adjournment because the applicant was already aware of the next date before the trial court and, therefore, he should have made the arrangements much prior thereto. If the applicant had decided not to instruct the lawyer and to engage a new lawyer just in order to seek adjournments, then the ill-intentions of the applicant cannot be upheld by adopting a lenient view.”

Advocate Pramendra Singh Thakur appeared for the Applicant/accused while Government Advocate Dilip Parihar appeared for the Respondent/State.

Factual Background -

In February 2024, the victim appeared for examination and her examination-in-chief was recorded. Although in the ordersheet, the Trial Court mentioned that examination-in-chief and cross-examination of victim were completed and she was released. The counsel for the accused prayed for deferment of the cross-examination on the ground that he has not properly prepared the case and some more information is required from the accused. Accordingly, the cross-examination was deferred and the case was adjourned.

The Trial Court closed the right of the accused to cross-examine the victim. The victim was present and on the date of the impugned order, Advocate appeared and filed his Memorandum and prayed for time to cross-examine the victim. When the Court insisted that the accused must pay the cost to the witness, then the counsel for the accused also refused to pay any cost. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court closed the right of the accused to cross-examine the victim.

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “… it is clear that the adjournments should not be granted just for the sake of adjournment and the Court should keep the difficulties in mind, which may be faced by the witnesses. On 9.2.2024 when the prosecutrix was present and her examination-in-chief was record, it was the applicant who prayed for deferment of cross-examination on the ground that his counsel was not properly prepared.”

The Court questioned that, although the case was fixed for February 23, 2024 but the ordersheet of the said date has not been placed on record and why that has not been placed, is only known to the accused.

“Be that whatever it may be. … Thereafter when the case was taken up on 6.3.2024 the prosecutrix was present and now the applicant engaged some new lawyer, who also prayed for some time to cross-examine the prosecutrix and also refused to pay cost to the prosecutrix”, it added.

Furthermore, the Court said that the Trial Court did not commit any mistake by closing the right of the accused to cross-examine the prosecutrix.

“It is true that the applicant may suffer irreparable loss on account of non-cross-examination of prosecutrix, but for this hard-burning situation, only the applicant is responsible who was involved in making every effort to harass the prosecutrix by continuously seeking adjournments for her cross-examination”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Application.

Cause Title- Tulsi Ram Lodhi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2024:MPHC-JBP:52283)

Click here to read/download the Judgment