2025 (11) TMI 766

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Sharma Welding Store & Ors." pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter "learned MM/Trial Court"). 2. This Court notes that CC No. 8902/2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter "NI Act") was instituted on 30.09.2014 before the learned MM by the complainant/respondent "Fortune Weld" against the petitioners. The complainant asserts supply of welding material under invoices aggregating to approximately Rs. 19,83,091/- and alleges that only Rs. 10,53,283/- was received. Three cheques bearing nos. 732185 (Rs. 3,62,261/- dated 22.07.2014), 732188 (Rs. 3,32,241/- dated 23.07.2014) and 732187 (Rs. 1,80,626/- dated 24.07....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hus, revision against the same was not maintainable. The learned ASJ dismissed the said revision petition on merits as well, thereby, upholding the decision of the learned MM. Thus, the present petition. 6. Mr. Paras Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the trial before the learned MM is at the stage of final arguments on 07.11.2025, however the complainant has never been cross- examined even once. It is submitted that the petitioners filed an application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act on 23.05.2018 seeking permission to cross-examine CW-1 and the same was allowed. The petitioners submit that the matter was listed for cross-examination on multiple dates including 05.09.2018, 20.09.2021 and 02.02.2022 but cross-exam....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Court to recall a witness at any stage if it is essential to arrive at a just decision and late stage is not an absolute bar. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. 12. In the considered view of this Court, the entire grievance which is sought to be projected by way of the present petition is nothing but an attempt to re-agitate the very same grounds which have already been urged before the learned MM and then again before the learned ASJ. 13. Both the Courts below have concurrently returned a finding that more than adequate, repeated, and even last and final opportunities, were granted to the accused to cross-examine CW-1 and yet the cross- examination did not take plac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tual scenario falls squarely within that principle and this Court is of the view that the grounds urged before this Court are an attempt to undo consequences of the party's own failure to act diligently, which cannot be permitted. 17. Moreover, as regards to the specific averment made by the petitioners qua their earlier counsel, this Court relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav, (2016) 2 SCC 402. In the said judgment, it was held that a litigant cannot seek recall only because he is now dissatisfied with how his counsel conducted the defence. The Hon'ble Court clarified that recall must be justified on the touchstone of essentiality for a just decision, and not on the basis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5. Thus, the plea that they later realized the complainant was never cross-examined is not persuasive. 21. Two Courts have concurrently declined to re-open evidence. There is no perversity, no patent illegality and no demonstrable failure of justice. The learned Trial Court's approach is consistent with jurisprudence that recall at the fag end must be the exception and not the norm. Interference under such circumstances will amount to converting discretion into a matter of entitlement, which is contrary to settled law. 22. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners had already exercised the statutory remedy of revision against the order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the learned MM, by filing Criminal Revision Petition bearing No. 365....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e an alternate revisional forum. In Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, (1997) 4 SCC 241, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a revision has already been filed and decided by the Sessions Court, a further petition before the High Court cannot be entertained under Section 482 CrPC to circumvent the embargo contained in Section 397(3) of the CrPC and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings unless there has been failure of justice such as illegality in the order, which is not the case in the instant matter due to the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs. 25. In view of this legal position, once the petitioners have exhausted the remedy of revision before the learned ASJ, and the same stands dismissed on 21.08.2025, a second challenge on th....