Delhi High Court
Vijay Mehta vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 29 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 29, 2015
+ (i) CRL.M.C. 5193/2014 & Crl.M.A.17769/2014
VIJAY MEHTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B. P. Singh and Mr. K.V.
Sreemithun, Advocates
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ) & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
+ (ii) CRL.M.C. 5197/2014 & Crl.M.A.17777/2014
VIJAY MEHTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B. P. Singh and Mr. K.V.
Sreemithun, Advocates
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ) & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
+ (iii) CRL.M.C. 5198/2014 & Crl.M.A.17779/2014
VIJAY MEHTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B. P. Singh and Mr. K.V.
Sreemithun, Advocates
versus
STATE OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondents
CRL.M.Cs. 5193, 97-98 of 2014 Page 1
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
In the above-captioned three petitions, petitioner's application
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall respondent-complainant in the
three complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 stands dismissed vide order of 13th February, 2014.
Since the challenge to the impugned order in these three petitions is
on identical grounds, therefore, these three petitions were heard together
and are being disposed of together by this common judgment.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submits that non-
appearance of petitioner's counsel on 20th August, 2014 was due to his
being busy in some other court and the recalling of respondent-
complainant is essential to confront respondent-complainant with the
communications of 30th January, 2003 and reply filed to the legal notice
by petitioner.
It was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that one effective
opportunity be granted to petitioner to confront respondent-complainant
with the aforesaid communications and the reply.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order of 20 th August,
2014, I find that petitioner has managed to delay the proceedings from
September, 2006 till August, 2014.
CRL.M.Cs. 5193, 97-98 of 2014 Page 2
During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this
Court that the matter is now pending for petitioner's evidence. If it is so,
then petitioner will have an opportunity to depose in respect of the
aforesaid communications of 30th January, 2003 and the reply sent by
petitioner to legal notice sent by respondent-complainant.
In view of the aforesaid, recalling of respondent-complainant for
further cross-examination is not justified in view of the conduct of
petitioner and because respondent suffers no prejudice as he will have
opportunity to depose in respect of the communications and the reply
filed.
Finding no palpable error in the impugned order, these three
petitions and the applications are dismissed while not commenting upon
the merits of this case.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 29, 2015
s
CRL.M.Cs. 5193, 97-98 of 2014 Page 3
