Court quashes orders in criminal case due to lack of defense disclosure, illegal cross-examination, and improper grounds.

The court quashed the orders allowing the accused to cross-examine the complainant and dismissing the petitioner's application for recall in a criminal case. The court held that the accused failed to disclose a specific defense, as required by law, and granted cross-examination without proper grounds. Consequently, the court found the orders to be illegal, set them aside, and disposed of the case in favor of the petitioner.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to order allowing cross-examination of complainant and dismissal of application for recall in a criminal case.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the order allowing the accused to cross-examine the complainant and the subsequent dismissal of the application for recall. The accused had sought financial assistance from the complainant for a land development project, resulting in a friendly loan agreement and subsequent dishonored cheques. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The accused, after pleading not guilty, applied for cross-examination without disclosing a probable defense, which the petitioner contended was done casually. The JMFC allowed the cross-examination without seeking the complainant's input. The petitioner's application for recall was dismissed by the trial court on the grounds of lack of power to recall the order and being filed after six months.

3. The petitioner cited an unreported judgment and a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that the accused must disclose a specific defense when contesting a case. The court noted that the accused failed to file a reply or comply with the notice, missing the opportunity to set out a defense. The court held that the JMFC erred in granting the accused's application for cross-examination without a probable defense, contrary to legal precedent.

4. The court found the JMFC's order to be illegal and against established law, leading to the quashing and setting aside of the orders dated 2.11.2018 and 27.11.2019. The petition was allowed, and the orders in the criminal case were disposed of accordingly.

---