The court emphasized the importance of presenting a valid defense and not using procedural tactics to delay proceedings or gain an advantage.

P.S. TEJI, J.

CRL.M.C. No.2613/2016

1. The present petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Crl.P.C.) has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 12th July, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

2. A thumbnail sketch of the facts of the case emerging from the records and the complaint case filed by the respondent no.1, is that respondent no.1 executed an agreement to sell/Bayana with the petitioner for purchasing the property/house of the petitioner for a total consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- and that the said agreement was duly signed by both the parties. The respondent no.1 paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner in advance as Bayana amount at the time of executing the said agreement to sell/Bayana by way of a cheque and further paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner in cash on account of part payment of the sale consideration. Thus, the respondent no.1 paid Rs.15,00,000/- in advance out of total sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-. Thereafter, the said deal could not be materialized due to certain reasons and the respondent no.1 asked for return of the advance paid amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. The petitioner gave a cheque for a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs to the respondent no.1 in discharge of his liability. However, when the said cheque was presented for encashment by the respondent no.1, the same was dishonoured and returned unpaid with remarks “Account closed”. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 approached the petitioner for apprising him about the dishonour of cheque but the petitioner did not reply to it.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr. P.C. read with Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act for again cross-examination of the respondent no.1 and an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

4. In the application filed under Section 311 Cr. P.C., the petitioner had stated that the recalling of the respondent no.1 for further examination was necessary as he had discovered fresh evidence to the effect that he had succeeded to arrange extra judicial confession/statements of the complainant in the form of video recording while under Section 315 Cr. P.C., the petitioner wanted to examine himself as a witness to prove the said conversation.

5. The said applications were dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on the ground that the conversation between the parties was not prior to filing of the complaint or immediately thereafter. It was further held that recalling of respondent no.1 and further his cross-examination was sought just to fill the lacuna in the defence of the accused. The second application i.e. under Section 315 Cr. P.C. moved by the accused, was dismissed on the ground that the said conversation was not an evidence necessary for the purpose of deciding the case and moreover, no other sufficient reason had been provided to permit the accused at that stage after a considerable delay, for getting himself examined.

6. The petitioner admitted issuance of cheque. In his application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act, the petitioner took the defence that he already paid a sum of Rs.11.00 lakhs to the respondent no.1 and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was due to him.

7. The petitioner preferred a criminal revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 12th July, 2016. The learned ASJ held that the entire conversation took place between the petitioner and Mukesh and that the respondent no.1 was either hearing the conversation or stating the reason for filing of the complaint case but he had not made any admission. It was further held that the petitioner had moved the revision petition just to fill lacuna in his case and that the alleged conversation was not necessary for decision of the case.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at leng