Cross-examination relevance limits under NI Act complaint: irrelevant and lacuna-filling questions may be disallowed.
A petition styled under Section 482 CrPC was maintainable despite the challenge being directed against disallowance of cross-examination questions, as the High Court may examine whether the impugned order reflects error or perversity and is not bound to reject it on nomenclature alone. On merits, the trial court correctly held that questions about loans allegedly taken by the respondent or her family and about another case against a family member were irrelevant to the Section 138 NI Act complaint. Cross-examination must remain tied to relevant facts, and it cannot be used for roving, vexatious, humiliating, or lacuna-filling inquiry. The challenge was therefore rejected and no interference was made in inherent jurisdiction.
Issues: (i) Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable to challenge the order disallowing questions in cross-examination. (ii) Whether the trial court erred in disallowing the two questions as irrelevant to the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Issue (i): Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable to challenge the order disallowing questions in cross-examination.
Analysis: The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred merely because the petition is styled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court may examine whether the challenged order suffers from error or perversity and is not obliged to reject the proceeding at the threshold on nomenclature alone.
Conclusion: The petition was maintainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the trial court erred in disallowing the two questions as irrelevant to the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Analysis: Relevancy is governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and examination as well as cross-examination must relate to relevant facts. While cross-examination may extend beyond the examination-in-chief, it cannot become a vexatious, scandalous, humiliating, or roving inquiry. Questions about whether the respondent or her family members had taken loans from others, or about pendency of another case against a family member, had no bearing on the fact in issue in the complaint. The petitioner also could not use the opportunity to fill lacunae in the evidence by seeking a wider recall of the witness.
Conclusion: The trial court rightly disallowed the questions and no perversity or miscarriage of justice was shown.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned order failed, and the interference sought in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction was declined.
Ratio Decidendi: Cross-examination must be confined to relevant facts having a nexus with the fact in issue, and a trial court may disallow questions that are irrelevant, vexatious, or intended to cause harassment or to fill evidentiary lacunae.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
