https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94148 The HC dismissed the petition, holding that petitioners failed to justify recall of the complainant-witness under Section 311 CrPC after closure of evidence and cannot invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 CrPC to re-agitate matters already adjudicated in revision. The court found a seven-year delay and repeated non-diligence-fourteen missed opportunities to cross-examine CW-1 after permission under Section 145(2) NI Act-constituted abuse and prejudice to the complainant. Alleged medical incapacity of prior counsel was unproved. Two lower courts had concurrently refused re-opening; no perversity or failure of justice was shown. The petition, deemed a disguised second revision barred by substantive bars, was dismissed. en-us Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:42:55 +0530 Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:42:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94148 The HC dismissed the petition, holding that petitioners failed to justify recall of the complainant-witness under Section 311 CrPC after closure of evidence and cannot invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 CrPC to re-agitate matters already adjudicated in revision. The court found a seven-year delay and repeated non-diligence-fourteen missed opportunities to cross-examine CW-1 after permission under Section 145(2) NI Act-constituted abuse and prejudice to the complainant. Alleged medical incapacity of prior counsel was unproved. Two lower courts had concurrently refused re-opening; no perversity or failure of justice was shown. The petition, deemed a disguised second revision barred by substantive bars, was dismissed. Highlights Indian Laws Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:42:55 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94148