Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
CNR No. DLNW01-006030-2024
CR 214-24
Pooja Bhatia v. Kamla Arora
18.07.2024
Present: Sh. Pankaj Arya, Advocate for the revisionist.
Sh. Akshit Sawal and Sh. Kunal Vason, Advocates for
the respondent, who put the memo of appearance.
Heard the arguments.
ORDER
The present revision has been preferred challenging the
order dated 23.03.2024 whereby the opportunity to cross-
examine the respondent/complainant was closed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision are
that Smt. Kamla Arora, the complainant/respondent filed a
complaint u/s.138 N.I. Act against the respondent/accused as two
cheques issued by the revisionist herein for a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- each drawn on Bank of India dated 15.08.2021 and
20.08.2021 in favour of the complainant/respondent, when
presented for encashment, returned unpaid due to insufficient
funds in the account of the revisionist herein. Legal demand
notice was served. Despite that, payment was not made, hence,
the complaint.
Page 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
3. Ld. Trial Court, after considering the evidence and the
affidavits, summoned the revisionist herein for the offence
punishable u/s.138 N.I. Act.
4. Notice u/s.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable
u/s.138 N.I. Act was also given to the revisionist on 19.11.2022
to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, an
application u/s.145(2) N.I. Act was moved by the revisionist,
which was allowed on 05.08.2023 and thereafter the case was
fixed for cross-examination of the complainant. On 23.03.2024
the Ld. Trial Court closed the opportunity. Aggrieved by the
same, the present revision has been preferred on 20.06.2024. The
only issue is whether the order of the Ld. Trial Court closing the
opportunity to cross-examine is liable to be set aside and
opportunity be afforded to the revisionist herein.
5. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that on the
date the application u/s.145(2) N.I. Act was allowed, the proxy
counsel was present but he could not appear as he was suffering
with conjunctivitis. On the next date, as per the order sheet, the
complainant was not present and on the next date, he and accused
could not appear and the court closed the evidence. Practically,
only one opportunity has been provided. It is prayed that by
closing the right to cross-examine, the valuable right of the
revisionist has been taken away to bring truth before the court for
the just adjudication, resulting into miscarriage of justice and
prayed that the order be set aside and he be afforded one
opportunity.
Page 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
6. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the
revisionist herein is in the habit of delaying the proceedings.
There is another case, in that also, the revisionist herein is
causing delay. Even the cost imposed by the court on 15.05.2024
has not been paid yet despite two dates given by the Ld. Trial
Court. Ld. Counsel submitted that on the day when the
application u/s.145(2) N.I. Act was allowed, the complainant was
available but was not cross-examined and on the next date also,
the complainant could have been produced before the court for
cross-examination. Ld. Counsel submitted that at the first call,
the complainant and he could not appear but at the second call,
he was present and the complainant was also present. It was due
to the non-appearance of the counsel for the revisionist that the
cross-examination could not be conducted. The court, keeping in
view the absence of the counsel for the revisionist/accused, gave
the last and final opportunity to cross-examine and on that date
also, he chose not to appear. Specific time was mentioned in the
order sheet. Case was called thrice. Despite that, neither the
counsel nor the revisionist/accused appeared. Hence, the Ld.
Trial Court has rightly closed the right of the revisionist. There is
no merit in the revision and it is prayed that the revision be
dismissed.
7. Keeping in view the submissions, I find that
opportunities were granted to the revisionist herein to cross-
examine but she chose not to appear but in any case, as right to
cross-examine is a valuable right, not only for the accused but
Page 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
also for the court to reach just decision, therefore, one more
opportunity is given to the revisionist herein to cross-examine the
respondent/ complainant on 22.07.2024 at 12 Noon, subject to
payment of cost of Rs.5000/- by the revisionist herein to the
respondent. Payment of cost will be condition precedent for
cross-examination. If the cost is not paid, his right to cross-
examine will be closed. It is made clear that no further
opportunity will be provided to the revisionist for the purpose of
cross-examination of the complainant/respondent.
The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. Copy
of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court with trial court record.
Copy of this order be also given dasti.
Revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
(Virender Kumar Bansal)
Principal District & Sessions Judge (NW)
Rohini Courts, Delhi/18.07.2024/sb
Page 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --