Petition dismissed for challenging Sessions order in cheque dishonour case under Section 219 Cr.P.C.

Delhi HC dismissed petition challenging Sessions Court order in cheque dishonour case. Petitioner sought to set aside order claiming Sessions Court failed to consider maintainability of complaint under Section 219 Cr.P.C. Court held petitioner had already paid costs for cross-examination of complainant and only challenged order closing cross-examination rights, not the original order dismissing Section 219 application. Since maintainability issue was not before Sessions Court, no grounds existed to interfere with its decision.

---

---

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the maintainability of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the right of the accused to cross-examine the complainant under Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Maintainability of Complaint:
The complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging dishonor of multiple cheques. The accused argued that the complaint was not maintainable under Section 219 of the Cr.P.C., which allows a maximum of 3 cheques to be tried together within 12 months. The Trial Court dismissed the accused's application under Section 219, leading to a revision petition. The Sessions Court set aside the Trial Court's order and granted the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant upon payment of a cost of Rs. 1 lakh.

Right to Cross-Examine:
The accused sought to challenge the Trial Court's order but had repeatedly sought adjournments, leading to the closure of his right to cross-examine the complainant. The Sessions Court allowed the accused one effective opportunity to cross-examine the complainant upon payment of costs. The accused challenged this order on the grounds that the Sessions Court did not consider the maintainability of the complaint under Section 219 of the Cr.P.C.

Judgment Analysis:
The petitioner argued that the Sessions Court failed to address the maintainability of the complaint under Section 219 of the Cr.P.C. The Court examined the records and found that the petitioner had not challenged the Trial Court's order dismissing his application under Section 219. The Sessions Court's order only pertained to the right to cross-examine the complainant. As the issue of maintainability was not raised before the Sessions Court, there were no grounds to set aside its order. The petitioner was advised to avail remedies if aggrieved by the Trial Court's order.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed, and pending applications were also rejected. The judgment was directed to be uploaded on the website promptly.

---