Back
Dismisses Plea to Recall Complainant in Cheque Bounce Case, Citing Huge Pendency
In a firm stance against , the has dismissed a petition seeking for in a cheque bounce case, emphasizing the need for of the mounting backlog under .
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, presiding over the criminal revision petition, rejected the plea filed by Lalit Pandey, who had challenged a trial court order from that denied his application under . The right to cross-examine the complainant, Sanjay Agarwal, had been closed on .
"Held Up in Another Court" – Petitioner's Explanation Fails
Pandey's counsel argued that on the date was closed, he was occupied before another court. The High Court, however, found this insufficient to justify recalling a witness who had already been examined, especially given the protracted timeline of the case, which has been pending since .
Legal Framework: Recall Is Not a Routine Matter
The Court anchored its reasoning in the 's precedent in , which cautioned that witnesses cannot be recalled merely because was not properly conducted. The judgment underscored that the must be exercised judiciously, balancing the imperative of a against the hardship imposed on witnesses and the risk of delay.
Key Observations
Justice Kaurav noted:
"There is a huge pendency of
cases across Delhi. The parties as well as the learned counsel are expected to extend full co-operation in
of such matters. Once the witness is available, the examination/
ought to take place on the same date. Requests for repeated adjournments have consistently been deprecated."
The Court further emphasized that merely invoking the phrase "" does not automatically justify recall—tangible reasons must demonstrate how the trial suffered without it.
Decision and Implications
Finding no sufficient ground to recall the witness, the dismissed the petition. The ruling reinforces the message that in cheque bounce cases—which already clog the capital's trial courts—lawyers and litigants must cooperate to ensure swift justice, and that delays caused by will not be countenanced at the .
