Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Cr. Rev. 134/25, 135/25
166/25, 167/25, 181/25 & 182/25
IN THE COURT OF SH. SYED ZISHAN ALI WARSI :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Cr Rev 134/2025
M/S VONAMOR ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED
Vs.
M/S GAMA INVESTMENT PVT LTD.
Cr Rev 135/2025
M/S VONAMOR ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED
Vs.
M/S AASHRAY PORTFOLIO PRIVATE LIMITED
Cr Rev 166/2025
M/S OSJ INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. AND ORS. Vs. M/S GAMA
INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.
Cr Rev 167/2025
M/S OSJ INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. AND ORS. Vs. M/S AASHRAY
PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD.
Cr Rev 181/2025
VENKATESH SANKAR Vs. GAMA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD
Cr Rev 182/2025
VENKATESH SANKAR Vs. AASHRAY PORTFOLIO PVT LTD.
11.02.2026
Present: Ms. R Priya, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
Sh. Aman Kr. Thakur, Ld. Counsel for respondent.
___________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 17
-- 1 of 17 --
Cr. Rev. 134/25, 135/25
166/25, 167/25, 181/25 & 182/25
ORDER
1. Vide this order, this court shall decide all the six
revision petitions (i.e. Cr. Rev. 134/25, 135/25 166/25, 167/25,
181/25 & 182/25) u/s 438 BNSS / 397 Cr.P.C. against the order
dated 17.08.2024 passed by Ms. Nishi Jindal, Ld. JMFC (NI
Act)-05, PHC, New Delhi passed in Ct. Case Nos. 8799/2020,
8800/2020, 8801/2020, 8798/2020, 8799/2020 & 8800/2020,
respectively, has closed the right of the petitioner to cross
examine the complainant witness (respondent herein).
BRIEF FACTS IN NUTSHELL ARE LIKE THAT:
2. Mr. Brahm Prakash Bhardwaj, the AR of the
Respondent Company filed a complaint u/s 138 of NI Act, 1881
against the Revisionist/ Petitioner for dishonor of cheque, issued
as alleged by the Revisionist/Petitioner, in favour of the
Respondent/complainant in the aforesaid complaint case. On
01.10.2020, the Respondent/Complainant filed four complaint
cases u/s 138/142 NI Act bearing nos. (1) CC NI ACT 8800/2020
titled as M/S AASHRAY PORTFOLIO PVT LTD Vs. M/S
VONAMOR ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. of cheque bounce
___________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 17
-- 2 of 17 --
Cr. Rev. 134/25, 135/25
166/25, 167/25, 181/25 & 182/25
of Rs.1 Crore, (2) CC NI ACT 8798/2020 titled as M/S
AASHRAY PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S OSJ
INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. of cheque bounced of
Rs.45,36,000/-, (3) CC NI ACT 8799/2020 titled as M/S GAMA
INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. Vs. VONAMOR
ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. of cheque bounce of
Rs.50,00,000/- and (4) CC NI ACT 8801/2020 titled as M/S
GAMA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S OSJ
INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. before the Ld. Trial Court against the
Revisionist/Petitioner. And, after examination-in-chief of the
complainant, despite several opportunities, the accused/petitioner
has failed to cross-examine the complainant/respondent and the
right of cross-examination of complainant by the
accused/petitioner has been closed vide order dated 17.08.2024
by the Ld. Trial Court against which the present petition is filed.
It is also clarified by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that
against four complaints, 06 revision petitions are filed as Ld.
Counsel has filed two revision petition against order Dated
17.08.2024 passed in Ct. Case Nos. 8799/2020, one is Cr. Rev
134/2025 titled M/S Vonamor Entertainment Private Limited Vs.
M/S Gama Investment Pvt Ltd., which is for the
company/Revisionist Vonamor and accused/Revisionist Mohd.
___________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 17
-- 3 of 17 --
Cr. Rev. 134/25, 135/25
166/25, 167/25, 181/25 & 182/25
Cherukara and Cr. Rev 181/2025 titled Venkatesh Sankar Vs.
Gama Investment Pvt. Ltd., which is for the accused/revisionist
Venkatesh Sankar. Similarly, against order Dated 17.08.2024
passed in Ct. Cases 8800/2020, Ld. Counsel has filed Cr. Rev.
135/2025 titled M/S Vonamor Entertainment Private Limited Vs.
M/S Aashray Portfolio Private Limited, which is for Company as
Revisionist and Cr. Rev 182/2025 titled Venkatesh Sankar Vs.
Aashray Portfolio Pvt Ltd., which is for accused Venkatesh
Sankar as revisionist.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LD. COUNSEL FOR
PETITIONER / REVISIONIST:
3. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that
on 17.08.2024, proxy counsel for petitioner has appeared before
Ld. Trial Court and sought time / prayed to cross-examine the
complainant / respondent as the main counsel was not available
due to his ill health because of the frequent change in the bad
weather condition in Chennai, Tamil Nadu but vide order dated
17.08.2024, Ld. Trial Court has closed the opportunity to cross-
examine the complainant. It is further submitted that the Ld.
JMFC has failed to adhere to the basis principles of natural
___________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 17
-- 4 of 17 --
Cr. Rev. 134/25, 135/25
166/25, 167/25, 181/25 & 182/25
justice and judicial decision by closing the right of cross
examining the complainant witness. It is submitted that the
complaints filed by the complainant are absolutely false,
fabricated, manipulated, concocted, frivolous and vexatious one
because the agreement mentioned in all the complaint is a
vexatious and fraudulent one created by the complainant which
was never been signed by the Petitioner. It is submitted that the
petitioner has frivolously been trapped in all complaint cases.
The petitioner had been doing business with the
complainant/respondent with mutual fundings but when the
business went into loss the complainant/respondent filed a
frivolous complaint against the petitioner. The documents were
forged and fabricated on which the respondent has filed the
complaint and closing of the right of cross-examination of the
petitioner will lead to failure of justice as a very valuable right of
the petitioner is curtailed. It is prayed that the revision petitions
are allowed and one opportunity be given to the accused to cross-
examine the complainant.
4. It is also submitted that due to extreme weather
change and rainfall, the petitioner got ill and not recovered which
caused delay in filing of the present petitions. Copy of
___________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 17
-- 5 of 17 --
Cr. Rev. 134/25, 135/25
166/25, 167/25, 181/25 & 182/25
consultation and medical bills are annexed with the present
petition.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LD. COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENT.
5. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the respondent
submits that the present petition is not maintainable qua order
17.08.2024 and the same is liable to be dismissed at the
threshold. It is well settled law that Criminal Revision is not
maintainable in respect of interlocutory orders. The order dated
17.08.2024 passed by Ld. Trial court, closing right of the
Petitioner to cross-examine is not a final order and the same is
absolutely interlocutory in nature. Further, as per the law
interlocutory orders are not amenable to the revisional
jurisdiction under section 438 of BNSS and earlier Section 397
of CrPC. The said position of law is also upheld by Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in judgement rendered in Vinod Aggarwal vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) 2017 SCC Del 12364. Therefore, present petition
is liable to be dismissed. It is also submitted that the order of the
Ld. Trial Court is passed after providing ample opportunities to
the petitioner and the sole intention of the petitioner is to cause
___________________________________________________________________
Page 6 of 17
-- 6 of 17 --
Cr. Rev. 134/25, 135/25
166/25, 167/25, 181/25 & 182/25
delay in the trial.
Heard. Record perused.
6. On perusal of the record accompanied with the
petition as well as with the reply,it is apparent that, the Ld. Trial
Court has given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to cross-
examine the AR of the complainant. As can be seen from order-
sheet dated 17.07.2023, even after waiting up to 12:05 PM i.e.
second round for accused, the Ld. Trial Court has given last and
final opportunity for cross-examination of AR of the
complainant. While the previous cost were remained unpaid.
Then, on 12.07.2024, the Ld. Trial Court has made reference of
the previous order-sheets, then again, one last and final
opportunity was granted to the accused to conduct the cross-
examination of the AR of the complainant and the Ld. Trial Court
has also made it clear that if the needful is not done on NDOH,
then the right for cross-examination of AR of the complainant
shall stand closed. Then, on 17.08.2024, after perusal of previous
order-sheets and conduct of the accused/petitioner the
opportunity for cross-examination was closed. Thus, due to the
conduct of the accused / petitioner, Ld. Trial Court was
___________________________________________________________________
Page 7 of 17
-- 7 of 17 --
Cr. Rev. 134/25, 135/25
166/25, 167/25, 181/25 & 182/25
compelled to pass the order of closing the right of cross-
examination as the petitioner has time and again took the
adjournments without any cogent reason. Thus, in the opinion of
this court, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order of the Ld.
Trial Court dated 17.08.2024.
7. With regard to delay in filing the present petition,
the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay that
due to unavoidable circumstances i.e. extreme rainfall, shut down
of electricity and illness of the petitioner is not substantiated by
the petitioner’s own documents as in the photocopy of medical
certificate Dates are not mentioned in detail and also the nature
of disease is not mentioned to explain that the petitioner due to
disease was not able to file the present petition within the period
of limitation or soon thereafter. As in one consultation bill, the
date is given 15.04.2024 while in other 20.01.2025 and there is
no bill or any document for the period of August, September,
October or up to the mid of November to show that he was ill
during the period of limitation for filing the present petition. And,
the petitioner was in the knowledge of the order dated
17.08.2024 as he was appearing before the Ld. Trial Court
through VC and the statement of accused were recorded on
___________________________________________________________________
Page 8 of 17
-- 8 of 17 --
Cr. Rev. 134/25, 135/25
166/25, 167/25, 181/25 & 182/25
06.12.2024 before the Ld. Trial Court. Thus, the petitioner has
failed to show any cogent reasons why he was not able to file the
present revision within the period of limitation.
8. On the question of maintainability of the present
revision petition with regard to the closing of the right of cross-
examination, it is relevant to consider the settled position of law
as held in the following judgments:
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sethuraman Vs.
Rajamanickam (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 153 decided on
18.03.2009 held as follows:
“…..5. Secondly, what was not realised was that the orders
passed by the trial court refusing to call the documents and
rejecting the application under Section 311 CrPC, were
interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those
orders was clearly barred under Section 397(2) CrPC. The trial
court, in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the
cheque was admittedly signed by the respondent-accused and
the only defence that was raised, was that his signed cheques
were lost and that the appellant complainant had falsely used
one such cheque. The trial court also recorded a finding that the
documents were not necessary. This order did not, in any
___________________________________________________________________
Page 9 of 17
-- 9 of 17 --
Cr. Rev. 134/25, 135/25
166/25, 167/25, 181/25 & 182/25
manner, decide anything finally. Therefore, both the orders i.e.
one on the application under Section 91 CrPC for production of
documents and other on the application under Section 311
CrPC for recalling the witness, were the orders of interlocutory
nature, in which case, under Section 397(2), revision was
clearly not maintainable. Under such circumstances, the
learned Judge could not have interfered in his revisional
jurisdiction. The impugned judgment is clearly incorrect in law
and would have to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The
appeals are allowed.”
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of U.P. Vs. Shambhu Nath Singh reported in (2001) 4 SCC
667 has held as under :
“10. Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”)
is the only provision which confers power on the trial court for granting
adjournments in criminal proceedings. The conditions laid down by the
legislature for granting such adjournments have been clearly incorporated
in the section. It reads thus:
“309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.—(1) In every
inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as
possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has
once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day until all the
witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds
___________________________________________________________________
Page 10 of 17
-- 10 of 17 --
Cr. Rev. 134/25, 135/25
166/25, 167/25, 181/25 & 182/25
the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary
for reasons to be recorded. (2) If the court, after taking cognizance of
an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable
to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it
may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, 1postpone or
adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it
considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in
custody: Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person
to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a
time: Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no
adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining
them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided
also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of
enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence
proposed to be imposed on him.”
11. The first sub-section mandates on the trial courts that the proceedings
shall be held expeditiously but the words “as expeditiously as possible”
have provided some play at the joints and it is through such play that delay
often creeps in the trials. Even so, the next limb of the subsection sounded
for a more vigorous stance to be adopted by the court at a further advanced
stage of the trial. That stage is when examination of the witnesses begins.
The legislature which diluted the vigour of the mandate contained in the
initial limb of the sub-section by using the words “as expeditiously as
possible” has chosen to make the requirement for the next stage (when
___________________________________________________________________
Page 11 of 17
-- 11 of 17 --
Cr. Rev. 134/25, 135/25
166/25, 167/25, 181/25 & 182/25
examination of the witnesses has started) to be quite stern. Once the case
reaches that stage the statutory command is that such examination “shall be
continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been
examined”. The solitary exception to the said stringent rule is, if the court
finds that adjournment “beyond the following day to be necessary” the
same can be granted for which a condition is imposed on the court that
reasons for the same should be recorded. Even this dilution has been taken
away when witnesses are in attendance before the court. In such situation
the court is not given any power to adjourn the case except in the extreme
contingency for which the second proviso to sub-section (2) has imposed
another condition,
“provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no
adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining
them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing”. (emphasis
supplied)
12. Thus, the legal position is that once examination of witnesses started,
the court has to continue the trial from day to day until all witnesses in
attendance have been examined (except those whom the party has given up).
The court has to record reasons for deviating from the said course. Even
that is forbidden when witnesses are present in court, as the requirement
then is that the court has to examine them. Only if there are “special
reasons”, which reasons should find a place in the order for adjournment,
that alone can confer jurisdiction on the court to adjourn the case without
examination of witnesses who are present in court.
___________________________________________________________________
Page 12 of 17
-- 12 of 17 --
Cr. Rev. 134/25, 135/25
166/25, 167/25, 181/25 & 182/25
13. Now, we are distressed to note that it is almost a common practice and
regular occurrence that trial courts flout the said command with impunity.
Even when witnesses are present, cases are adjourned on far less serious
reasons or even on flippant grounds. Adjournments are granted even in such
situations on the mere asking for it. Quite often such adjournments are
granted to suit the convenience of the advocate concerned. We make it clear
that the legislature has frowned at granting adjournments on that ground.
At any rate inconvenience of an advocate is not a “special reason” for
bypassing the mandate of Section 309 of the Code.
14. If any court finds that the day-to-day examination of witnesses
mandated by the legislature cannot be complied with due to the non-
cooperation of the accused or his counsel the court can adopt any of the
measures indicated in the sub-section i.e. remanding the accused to custody
or imposing cost on the party who wants such adjournments (the cost must
be commensurate with the loss suffered by the witnesses, including the
expenses to attend the court). Another option is, when the accused is absent
and the witness is present to be examined, the court can cancel his bail, if
he is on bail (unless an application is made on his behalf seeking
permission for his counsel to proceed to examine the witnesses present even
in his absence provided the accused gives an undertaking in writing that he
would not dispute his identity as the particular accused in the case).
15. The time-frame suggested by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Raj
___________________________________________________________________
Page 13 of 17
-- 13 of 17 --
Cr. Rev. 134/25, 135/25
166/25, 167/25, 181/25 & 182/25
Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar (1998(7) SCC 507)is partly in consideration
of the legislative mandate contained in Section 309(1) of the Code. This is
what the Bench said on that score:
“16. The Code of Criminal Procedure is comprehensive enough to
enable the Magistrate to close the prosecution if the prosecution is
unable to produce its witnesses in spite of repeated opportunities.
Section 309(1) CrPC supports the above view as it enjoins expeditious
holding of the proceedings and continuous examination of witnesses
from day to day. The section also provides for recording reasons for
adjourning the case beyond the following day.”
16. In Raj Deo Sharma (II) v. State of Bihar this Court pointed out that the
trial court cannot be permitted to flout the mandate of Parliament unless the
court has very cogent and strong reasons and no court has permission to
adjourn examination of witnesses who are in attendance beyond the next
working day. A request has been made by this Court to all the High Courts
to remind all the trial Judges of the need to comply with Section 309 of the
Code. The request is in the following terms: (SCC p. 614, para 14)
“14. We request every High Court to remind the trial Judges through
a circular of the need to comply with Section 309 of the Code in letter
and spirit. We also request the High Court concerned to take note of
the conduct of any particular trial Judge who violates the above
legislative mandate and to adopt such administrative action against
the delinquent judicial officer as the law permits.”
___________________________________________________________________
Page 14 of 17
-- 14 of 17 --
Cr. Rev. 134/25, 135/25
166/25, 167/25, 181/25 & 182/25
17. We believe, hopefully, that the High Courts would have issued the
circular desired by the Apex Court as per the said judgment. If the
insistence made by Parliament through Section 309 of the Code can be
adhered to by the trial courts there is every chance of the parties
cooperating with the courts for achieving the desired objects and it would
relieve the agony which witnesses summoned are now suffering on account
of their nonexamination for days.”
11. Now reverting back to the case at hand, the
Petitioner has been deliberately and intentionally delaying the
pending complaint case before the Trial court. The same is
evident from the fact that the cross-examination of the
Complainant/Respondent was pending since 24.04.2023.
Thereafter, on each subsequent date of hearing, unnecessary and
frivolous adjournments were sought by the Accused/Petitioner
solely to delay and prolong the case. Still, vide order dated
12.07.2024, the Ld. Trial court granted a last opportunity to the
Petitioner to conduct the cross-examination of the AR of the
Complainant/Respondent, clearly stating that failure to do so
would result in the closure of the said opportunity. However, on
the next date of hearing again the Petitioner/accused sought
adjournment without any sufficient cause or reason. It was in
___________________________________________________________________
Page 15 of 17
-- 15 of 17 --
Cr. Rev. 134/25, 135/25
166/25, 167/25, 181/25 & 182/25
these compelling circumstances, that, the Ld. Trial court closed
the right of the Accused/Petitioner to cross-examine the
Complainant's/Respondent's AR. Lastly, on 06.12.2024, the
Statement of Accused u/s 313 Cr. PC was duly recorded before
the Ld. Trial Court. Thus it transpires that, the Ld. JMFC gave
ample opportunities to the counsel for petitioner for cross-
examination of complainant CW1, but, the petitioner and his
counsel failed to cross examine the complainant. Thus, the order
dated 17.08.2024 of the Ld. Trial Court i.e. closing the
opportunity of revisionist / accused to cross-examine the
complainant / respondent had not terminated the proceedings and
closing of the opportunity of cross-examination is merely a
procedural order and therefore in a interlocutory order .
Acoordingly,the present petitions being against interlocutory
order are not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in view
of the bar created by Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. / 439(2) BNSS.
12. Accordingly, the present petitions are liable to be
dismissed being not maintainable. With these observations
present petitions are disposed off accordingly.
___________________________________________________________________
Page 16 of 17
-- 16 of 17 --
Cr. Rev. 134/25, 135/25
166/25, 167/25, 181/25 & 182/25
Copy of the order be sent to concerned Ld.
JMFC.
Revision files be consigned to record room.
(SYED ZISHAN ALI WARSI)
Addl. Sessions Judge-04
Patiala House Courts
New Delhi/11.02.2026
___________________________________________________________________
Page 17 of 17
-- 17 of 17 --