Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prateek @ Rahul Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2026
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
Cr. R-1096 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT J AB A L PU R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1096 of 2026
PRATEEK @ RAHUL KUSHWAHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Krishna Deo Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. Vineeta Sharma - Government Advocate for the State.
Ms. Apoorva Singh Rajpoot and Ms. Sakshi Bhardwaj - Advocates for the
complainant.
Reserved on :: 25.03.2026
Pronounced on :: 31.03.2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner/accused
challenging the order dated 02.03.2026 passed by Special Judge SC/ST, Jabalpur,
in case no.SC ATR/263/2025 whereby petitioner’s application for deferring cross-
examination of the witnesses (comes under Section 231(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973/ Section 254(3) of BNSS, 2023), has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon complaint made on
29.07.2025, a FIR at Crime No.301/2025 was registered at Police Station Kotwali,
District Jabalpur, against the petitioner under Section 64(1), 103, 331(8), 115(2),
351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The allegations made in the FIR pertain to alleged incident involving prosecutrix
and subsequent death of her grandmother Smt. Hirabai Choudhary.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 31-03-2026
19:32:08
2
Cr. R-1096 of 2026
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the prosecution
primarily is based upon statements of witnesses 1 to 4, who belong to same family
and are residing in the same house situated at Damoh Naka, Jabalpur. The
principal witnesses cited by the prosecution are prosecutrix herself, her younger
sister, her mother and Bua. He submits that looking at the prosecution case, chief-
examination of the said witnesses should be recorded at once/same day and before
starting cross-examination by the defence. He submits that on the date of starting
chief examination of prosecutrix, the petitioner moved an application on
02.03.2026 making specific prayer for recording chief examination of said four
witnesses at once and deferment of their cross-examination till completion of chief
examination and if cross-examination is not deferred, the defence of the petitioner
may be disclosed prematurely, which may enable the prosecution to fill up lacunae
in its case, but the Court below has committed an illegality in dismissing the
application by the impugned order. Placing reliance on the decisions in the case of
State of Kerala vs. Rasheed, (2019) 13 SCC 297; Order dated 10.03.2022 passed
in CRR No.812/2022 in the case of Vishal Jat vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh; Order dated 07.01.2025 in CRR No.1088/2023 in the case of Pankaj
Uday vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; and Order dated 15.12.2025 in Misc.
Criminal Case no.56527/2025 in the case of Bharat Baghel vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and others, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
prayer made by the petitioner for deferring cross-examination ought to have been
allowed. With these submissions, he prays for allowing the criminal revision.
4. In turn, learned counsel appearing for the respondents support the
impugned order and submit that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case
and further looking to the averments made in the application and stage of prayer
made on behalf of the petitioner, Trial Court has not committed any illegality in
dismissing the application. In support of their submissions, they placed reliance on
the decisions in the case of Vijay Kumar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2017
Cr.L.J. 3875; Bela Bhattacharya vs. The State of West Bengal and another,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 31-03-2026
19:32:08
3
Cr. R-1096 of 2026
(2005) 1 C.Cr.L.R. (Cal) 694; and Rakesh and another vs. State of U.P. through
Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another in Application U/S 482 No. 362 of
2025 dated 17.01.2025 and pray for dismissal of the criminal revision.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Record made available/produced by the parties shows that trial
programme/case-calendar was prepared on 26.12.2025 and firstly the case was
listed for evidence of the prosecution on 16.02.2026, on which date, the
prosecutrix was also present. Since no counsel had appeared on behalf of accused,
therefore, the case was adjourned for 02.03.2026, on which date, chief
examination of main prosecution witness i.e. the prosecutrix was recorded. As per
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the application for deferral
was filed on 02.03.2026 that too before commencement of chief examination, but
the same does not appear to be correct from the record, because the trial Court has
put a note in middle part of the statement of prosecutrix that the application was
submitted after completion of chief examination.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in the case of State of Kerala vs. Rasheed
(2019) 13 SCC 297, held as under:-
“20. The circumstances in which the High Courts have approved the exercise of
discretion to defer cross-examination, so as to avoid prejudice due to disclosure of
strategy are:
(i) where witnesses were related to each other, and were supposed to depose on
the same subject-matter and facts ;
(ii) where witnesses were supposed to depose about the same set of facts.
However, the circumstances in which deferral has been refused are:
(i) where the ground for deferral was the mere existence of a relationship
between the witnesses ;
(ii) where specific reasons were not given in support of the claim that
prejudice would be caused since the defence strategy would be disclosed ;
(iii) where no prejudice would have been caused.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 31-03-2026
19:32:08
4
Cr. R-1096 of 2026
21. The Delhi High Court, in Vijay Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), laid down
useful directions for the conduct of criminal trials. The directions are
commendable, and relevant excerpts are reproduced hereinbelow: (SCC OnLine
Del para 42)
“42. … (vi) Since the expectation of law is that the trial, once it commences,
would continue from day to day till it is concluded, it is desirable that,
keeping in mind the possible time required for recording of evidence
(particularly of the prosecution), a detailed schedule of the dates of hearing
on which evidence would be recorded is drawn up immediately after charge
is framed — this, taking into account not only the calendar of the court but
also the time required by the prosecution to muster and secure the presence of
its witnesses as well as the convenience of the defence counsel. Once such a
schedule has been drawn up, all sides would be duty-bound to adhere to it
scrupulously.
(vii) While drawing up the schedule of dates for recording of the evidence for
the prosecution, as indicated above, the presiding Judge would take advice
from the prosecution as to the order in which it would like to examine its
witnesses, clubbing witnesses pertaining to the same facts or events together,
for the same set of dates.
(viii) If the defence intends to invoke the jurisdiction of the criminal court to
exercise the discretion for deferment of cross-examination of particular
witness(es) in terms of Section 231(2), or Section 242(3) CrPC, it must
inform the presiding Judge at the stage of setting the schedule so that the
order in which the witnesses are to be called can be appropriately
determined, facilitating short deferment for cross-examination (when
necessary) so that the recording of evidence continues, from day to day,
unhindered avoiding prolonged adjournments as are often seen to be misused
to unduly influence or intimidate the witnesses.
(ix) It is the bounden duty of the presiding Judge of the criminal court to take
appropriate measures, if the situation so demands, to insulate the witnesses
from undue influence or intimidatory tactics or harassment. If the court has
permitted deferment in terms of Section 231(2), or 242(3) CrPC, for cross-
examination of a particular witness, it would not mean that such cross-
examination is to be indefinitely postponed or scheduled for too distant a
date. The court shall ensure that the deferred cross-examination is carried out
in the then ongoing schedule immediately after the witness whose
examination ahead of such exercise has been prayed for.”
22. There cannot be a straitjacket formula providing for the grounds on which
judicial discretion under Section 231(2) CrPC can be exercised. The exercise of
discretion has to take place on a case-to-case basis. The guiding principle for a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 31-03-2026
19:32:08
5
Cr. R-1096 of 2026
Judge under Section 231(2) CrPC is to ascertain whether prejudice would be
caused to the party seeking deferral, if the application is dismissed.
23. While deciding an application under Section 231(2) CrPC, a balance must be
struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to
lead evidence. The following factors must be kept in consideration:
(i) possibility of undue influence on witness(es);
(ii) possibility of threats to witness(es);
(iii) possibility that non-deferral would enable subsequent witnesses giving
evidence on similar facts to tailor their testimony to circumvent the defence
strategy;
(iv) possibility of loss of memory of the witness(es) whose examination-in-
chief has been completed;
(v) occurrence of delay in the trial, and the non-availability of witnesses, if
deferral is allowed, in view of Section 309(1) CrPC.
These factors are illustrative for guiding the exercise of discretion by a Judge under
Section 231(2) CrPC.
24. The following practice guidelines should be followed by trial courts in the conduct
of a criminal trial, as far as possible:
24.1. A detailed case-calendar must be prepared at the commencement of the trial after
framing of charges.
24.2. The case-calendar must specify the dates on which the examination-in-chief and
cross-examination (if required) of witnesses is to be conducted.
24.3. The case-calendar must keep in view the proposed order of production of
witnesses by parties, expected time required for examination of witnesses, availability
of witnesses at the relevant time, and convenience of both the prosecution as well as the
defence, as far as possible.
24.4. Testimony of witnesses deposing on the same subject-matter must be proximately
scheduled.
24.5. The request for deferral under Section 231(2) CrPC must be preferably
made before the preparation of the case-calendar.
24.6. The grant for request of deferral must be premised on sufficient reasons justifying
the deferral of cross-examination of each witness, or set of witnesses.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 31-03-2026
19:32:08
6
Cr. R-1096 of 2026
24.7. While granting a request for deferral of cross-examination of any witness, the trial
courts must specify a proximate date for the cross-examination of that witness, after the
examination-in-chief of such witness(es) as has been prayed for.
24.8. The case-calendar, prepared in accordance with the above guidelines, must be
followed strictly, unless departure from the same becomes absolutely necessary.
24.9. In cases where trial courts have granted a request for deferral, necessary steps
must be taken to safeguard witnesses from being subjected to undue influence,
harassment or intimidation.
25. In the present case, a bald assertion was made by the counsel for the respondent-
Accused 2 that the defence of the respondent-Accused 2 would be prejudiced if the
cross-examination of CWs 1 to 5 is not deferred until after the examination-in-chief of
CWs 2 to 5.
26. The impugned order is liable to be set aside since the High Court has given no
reasons for reversal of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, particularly in light
of the possibility of undue influence and intimidation of witness(es) since the
respondent-Accused 2 and Accused 7 are “highly influential political leaders”.
27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present criminal appeal is allowed, and the
impugned order dated 9-1-2018 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Rasheed v. State
of Kerala [Rasheed v. State of Kerala, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 3899] is set aside. The
order dated 20-12-2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the
application filed on behalf of the respondent-Accused 2 stands restored. The
observations made hereinabove will, however, have no bearing on the merits of the case
during the course of trial. Ordered accordingly.”
8. From the aforesaid guidelines (especially paragraph 24.5 of it), issued by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala (supra), it is clear that
prayer for invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court to exercise the discretion
for deferment of cross-examination of particular witness(es) in terms of Section
231(2) of Cr.P.C. should be made preferably before the preparation of the trial
programme/case-calendar.
9. Although nothing has been produced on record of this Court about the
date of preparation of the case-calendar, but from the order sheet dated
16.02.2026, on which date prosecutrix had appeared before the Trial Court for her
examination as well as from the application dated 02.03.2026 filed by the
petitioner under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. and the statement of prosecutrix
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 31-03-2026
19:32:08
7
Cr. R-1096 of 2026
(PW-1), it is clear that the petitioner did not file any application in that regard prior
to 02.03.2026 and it was filed after completion of chief examination of
prosecutrix.
10. In the case of Vinod Kumar vs State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“57.4. In fact, it is not at all appreciable to call a witness for cross-examination after
such a long span of time. It is imperative if the examination-in-chief is over, the cross-
examination should be completed on the same day. If the examination of a witness
continues till late hours the trial can be adjourned to the next day for cross-examination.
It is inconceivable in law that the cross-examination should be deferred for such a long
time. It is anathema to the concept of proper and fair trial.
57.5. The duty of the court is to see that not only the interest of the accused as per law
is protected but also the societal and collective interest is safeguarded. It is distressing
to note that despite series of judgments of this Court, the habit of granting adjournment,
really an ailment, continues. How long shall we say, “Awake! Arise!”. There is a
constant discomfort. Therefore, we think it appropriate that the copies of the
judgment be sent to the learned Chief Justices of all the High Courts for
circulating the same among the learned trial Judges with a command to follow the
principles relating to trial in a requisite manner and not to defer the cross-
examination of a witness at their pleasure or at the leisure of the defence counsel,
for it eventually makes the trial an apology for trial and compels the whole society
to suffer chicanery. Let it be remembered that law cannot allowed to be lonely; a
destitute.”
11. Again in the case of Surender Singh vs State (NCT) of Delhi, AIR 2024
SC 3220, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the aforesaid guidelines and
held as under:
“18. The defence did not cross-examine this witness immediately after her examination-in-
chief, but sought that the cross-examination be deferred, which was done and she was cross-
examined only on 30-11-2004, which is more than two months after her examination-in-chief.
We may just stop here for a while only to sound a note of caution. Such long adjournment as
was given in this case after examination-in-chief, should never have been given. Reasons for
this are many, but to our mind the main reason would be that this may affect the fairness of the
trial and may even endanger, in a given case, the safety of the witness. As far as possible, the
defence should be asked to cross-examine the witness the same day or the following day. Only
in very exceptional cases, and for reasons to be recorded, the cross-examination should be
deferred and a short adjournment can be given after taking precautions and care, for the
witness, if it is required. We are constrained to make this observation as we have noticed
in case after case that cross-examinations are being adjourned routinely which can
seriously prejudice a fair trial.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 31-03-2026
19:32:08
8
Cr. R-1096 of 2026
20. As we have said cross-examination can be deferred in exceptional cases and for reasons
to be recorded by the court, such as under sub-section (2) of Section 231CrPC [“231.
Evidence for prosecution.–(1) On the date so fixed, the Judge shall proceed to take all such
evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. (2) The Judge may, in his
discretion, permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or
witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination.”(emphasis
supplied)] but even here the adjournment is not to be given as a matter of right and ultimately it
is the discretion of the court. In State of Kerala v. Rasheed [State of Kerala v. Rasheed, (2019)
13 SCC 297: (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 552] , this Court has set certain guidelines under which such
an adjournment can be given. The emphasis again is on the fact that a request for deferral
must be premised on sufficient reasons, justifying the deferral of cross-examination of the
witness.”
12. In the light of aforesaid law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
cases of Surender Singh vs State (NCT) of Delhi, AIR 2024 SC 3220; State of
Kerala vs. Rasheed (2019) 13 SCC 297; and Vinod Kumar vs State of Punjab,
(2015) 3 SCC 220, the settled position of law emerges that jurisdiction of the
criminal court to exercise the discretion under Section 231(2) of Cr.P.C./Section
254(3) of BNSS, 2023 can be invoked in the circumstances as under :
(i) before the preparation of the case-calendar;
(ii) when deferral is premised on sufficient reasons justifying the deferral of
cross-examination of each witness;
(iii) where specific reasons are given in support of the claim that prejudice
would be caused since the defence strategy would be disclosed;
(iv) only in very exceptional cases, and for reasons to be recorded, but not in
routine manner; and
(v) however, it is within the discretion of the criminal court.
13. As has been mentioned above, in the instant case deferment of cross-
examination till completion of chief examination of said four witnesses, is sought
on the premise that if cross-examination of the four witnesses is not deferred, the
defence of the petitioner may be disclosed prematurely, which may enable the
prosecution to fill up lacunae in its case, however, apparently no reason has been
assigned in the application justifying the prayer of deferment.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 31-03-2026
19:32:08
9
Cr. R-1096 of 2026
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the decisions/orders in the case of
Vishal Jat (supra); Pankaj Uday (supra); and Bharat Baghel (supra) relied upon
by learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts and do not
provide any help to the instant case.
15. Resultantly, in absence of any infirmity, illegality or perversity,
interference in the impugned order, within the revisional jurisdiction, is declined
and instant criminal revision being devoid of merit, fails and is hereby dismissed.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 31-03-2026
19:32:08
