[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Laxmi vs Prahlad Chand on 9 April, 2026
$~88
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 09thApril, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 2645/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10750/2026
LAXMI
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nikhil Chauhan, Advocate.
versus
PRAHLAD CHAND
.....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petitioner is facing trial for committing offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. The complaint in question is of the year 2022 and the cheque amount is
Rs.52,125/-.
3. The statement of accused has already been recorded under Section 313
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).
4. The petitioner herein had filed an application under Section 311
Cr.P.C. for re-calling of the complainant and is aggrieved by the dismissal of
his such application.
5. This Court has gone through the impugned order dated 10.02.2026.
The counsel for the accused had, merely, claimed before the learned Trial
Court that it was on account of ill-advice of her previous counsel and also on
account of the fact that she was unable to understand the legal language of the
Court that there was no cross-examination of the complainant and, therefore,
sought permission to re-call the complainant for cross-examination.
6. The abovesaid order would also indicate that the right of the accused to
cross-examine the complainant was closed on 06.07.2024, after giving
various opportunities. Order dated 06.07.2024, copy of which has been
enclosed, would also indicate that the accused had not even furnished her bail
bonds despite multiple opportunities and when she was given opportunity to
cross-examine the complainant on 03.04.2024 and, thereafter, on 20.05.2024,
she did not avail any such opportunity, for the reasons best known to her.
7. To make the things worse, copies of orders dated 03.04.2024 and
20.05.2024 have not even been attached with the present petition. So much so,
copy of application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has also not been
annexed.
8. When asked, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they
were engaged in the abovesaid matter in January, 2025 and when they
inspected the matter, they realized and found that the cross-examination of the
complainant was imperative.
9. Interestingly, despite there being a specific order to the
petitioner/accused to deposit interim compensation i.e. 20% of the cheque
amount, the abovesaid direction has yet not been complied with and the
learned Trial Court is compelled to issue process under Section 421 read with
Section 431 Cr.P.C. by using Warrants of Attachment.
10. Thus, the petitioner is interested in delaying the matter, on one pretext
or the other.
11. Moreover, mere change in the counsel would not give any such right or
handle to the new counsel to file any such application and to get the entire
case re-opened and start de-novo.
12. Be that as it may, keeping in mind the fact that the cheque in question
pertains to a small amount and also on account of total inaction on part of the
petitioner, this Court does not find any compelling reason to allow the
abovesaid request, at such a belated stage.
13. In view of the above, finding no merit or substance in the present
petition, the same is, dismissed.
14. Pending application also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
APRIL 9, 2026/ss/sa
