CRL.M.C./6853/2026 of SANJEEV CHAUDHARY Vs JAYANTI PRASAD SHARMA on 16 September 2026

O R D E R

% 16.09.2026

1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’] seeking setting aside of the order dated 09.06.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-04 [North], Rohini Courts, Delhi, in Ct. Cases No. 3547/2018, whereby the petitioner’s application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’] seeking recall of the respondent/complainant for further cross-examination was dismissed.

3. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that the respondent in the present petition instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’] involving four cheques amounting to a sum of ₹3,00,000/-. During the defence evidence on 14.01.2025, Vinay Kumar (DW-2) in the concerned complaint case stated that the respondent was engaged in money-lending and that he could produce the particular sought by the Court on the next date. His further cross-examination was deferred for want of the documents.

4. On 01.04.2025, the respondent declined to further cross-examine DW-

2. On the same date, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of CrPC. seeking recall of respondent/complainant. The said application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 09.06.2026.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is required to be recalled for the limited purpose of confronting him with documents concerning his alleged money-lending activities. It is submitted that the relevance of such documents arose from the testimony of DW-2, whose further cross-examination had been deferred for want of the same.

6. It is contended that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the aforesaid circumstances while dismissing the application. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned order and one opportunity to further cross-examine the respondent.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record.

8. Though the power under Section 311 of CrPC is wide, recall of a witness is warranted only where the evidence sought is shown to be essential to the just decision of the case. The provision cannot be invoked merely to afford a fresh opportunity to remedy an omission in an earlier cross- examination.

9. In the present case, the respondent/complainant was cross-examined and discharged on 05.10.2023. The application filed on 01.04.2025 neither identified the documents sought to be confronted nor specified the questions proposed to be put to the respondent. The plea that the previous counsel had not conducted the cross-examination properly, by itself, constitutes no ground for recall.

10. The reliance placed in the present case upon the testimony of DW-2 also does not advance the petitioner's case. The petitioner was at liberty to produce the relevant documents during defence evidence, however, on 01.04.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that no other defence witness was to be examined, whereupon defence evidence was closed. The respondent's decision not to further cross-examine DW-2 cannot confer upon the petitioner a right to reopen the concluded cross-examination of the respondent.

11. A perusal of the impugned order also shows that the learned Trial Court duly considered the pleas raised by the petitioner at that stage before dismissing the concerned application filed under Section 311 of CrPC.

12. In view of the above, this Court is of the view, that the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or material irregularity that would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

13. The present petition is accordingly, dismissed and disposed of.

14. The pending applications also stand disposed of.

15. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned learned Trial Court for necessary information and compliance.

16. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2026/PG