Uttarakhand High Court
C528/1566/2026 of SARTHAK THAPA Vs HARVINDER on 28 July 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/1566/2026 Sarthak Thapa --Applicant Versus Harvinder --Respondent Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, learned
UKHC010126572026
2026:UHC:6469
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
C528/1566/2026
Sarthak Thapa
--Applicant
Versus
Harvinder
--Respondent
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The applicant preferred this petition under section 528 of BNSS, 2023, who is facing the trial for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act. He submits that in this proceeding the complainant himself moved an application on 01.04.2026 through his counsel for permitting herself to re-examine for the limited purposes of explaining ambiguities that have been arisen from her answer to question no. 28, 36, 42, 51 and 52 of her cross-examination.
This application was allowed and the PW1 the complainant was re-examined on 10.06.2026 and developed a new case. Thereafter the applicant moved an application on 20.06.2026, whereby, he pray for that he may also be permitted to cross-examine PW1 consequent to re- examination. This application has been rejected by the Trial Court on 20.06.2026 and being aggrieved, the instant petition is moved.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that firstly PW1 for examination herself moved an application her re-examination and then on re-examination she developed a new case, which is wholly unwarranted.
4. He submits that even otherwise if PW1 was called on her application for re-examination and she was examined on 10.06.2026 then in such an eventuality, the applicant who is facing the trial should be permitted for cross-examination of UKHC010126572026
2026:UHC:6469 PW1.
5. He submits that learned Trial Court committed illegality while rejecting the application of the applicant, whereby, the applicant sought a permission to cross-examine PW1, consequent to her re-examination.
6. I found force on such submission. The Trial Court committed illegality while rejecting this application and once the Trial Court permitted the PW1 for re-examination, then in such eventuality, the applicant who is facing the trial should be given permission to cross-examine for the substantial justice. The order is per se illegal.
7. In such view of the matter, since order is per se illegal, therefore, the instant petition is allowed at the admission stage itself by setting aside the order of learned A.C.J.M. (Ist) dated 20.06.2026. The applicant, who is facing the trial for the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act, is permitted to cross-examine the PW1, who was re- examined on 10.06.2026.
8. No order as to costs.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 28.07.2026 PR