The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner must avail the opportunities given by the court, and a mere change of counsel does not suffice as a reason for not cross-examining a witness.

JUDGMENT

Talwant Singh, J. - The Petitioner,i.e., B.B. Lal aggarwal, has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') praying for the following reliefs:

'a. Set aside / quash the impugned order dated 25-01-2022 passed by the Ld. District & Session Judge, Distt. Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Criminal Revision No.6/2022 titled as Shri B.B. aggarwal Versus The State & Ors.

b. Set aside/ quash the impugned order dated 21-12-2021 passed by the Ld M.M. District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case No.814/2014, titled as DaP Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shri B.B. Lal aggarwal.

c. Set aside/ quash the impugned order dated 09.04.2019, passed by the Id. aSJ, Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in Crl no 25/19 titled as B.B. Lal aggarwal v. DaP Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

d. Impugned order dated 19.05.2018, 24.07.2018, 12.11.2018 and 15.12.2018, passed by the Ld.MM Sh. Prayank Nayak, Shahdara district, Karkardooma Courts in Complaint Case no.814/2014, titled as M/S DaP Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. versus B.B. Lal aggarwal.

e. Grant opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the complainant witness as CW1 in the complaint case no.814/2014 titled as DaP Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shri B.B.Lal aggarwal'.

2. The immediate cause for filing of the present petition is passing of an impugned order dated 25.01.2022 by learned Principal District & Session Judge (hereinafter referred to as 'PDSJ'), Shahdara in Crl.Rev. 06/2022. The brief history of the case has been captured in the following words in the order of the learned PDSJ as under:

'9. Perusal of the record reveals that the complaint case u/s 138 of NI act was instituted before the Ld. Trial Court on 01.04.2014. On that day, CW1 Sh. D.B. Jain was examined and discharged and revisionist/accused was ordered to be summoned for 08.09.2014. On 02.06.2016, notice u/s 251 CrPC was served upon the accused/revisionist. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist/accused sought time to file application u/s 145(2) of NI act. However, on no objection of Ld. Counsel for the complainant-therein, filing of application u/s 145(2) of NI act was dispensed with and the accused-therein was allowed to cross-examine the witness of the complainant. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for cross-examination of CW1 on various dates of hearings and even cost of Rs.10,000/- was also imposed upon the revisionist/accused on 24.04.2017. Further, last opportunity was given to the accused/revisionist to cross-examine the complainant subject to cost of Rs.75,000/- vide order dt. 19.05.2018 by the Ld. Trial Court. On 24.07.2018, cost of Rs.35,000/- was paid and the request of Ld. Counsel for the accused-therein for one more opportunity to cross-examine the witness as she was recently engaged, was allowed subject to cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the complainant for 26.10.2018. again on 12.11.2018, main counsel for the accused-therein was not available and last opportunity was given for cross-examination of CW1 subject to cost of Rs.50,000/- by the ld. Trial Court. Vide order dt I5.12.2018, the accused-therein failed to pay the entire remaining cost and opportunity to cross-examine the complainant stood closed. against the said order dt. 15.12.2018, the accused-therein filed a revision petition, which was also dismissed by the Ld. aSJ-01, Shahdara, Delhi on 09.04.2019 therein the Ld. aSJ observed and opined that in view of the repeated adjournments sought on one ground or the other, which was sought to be compensated by way of cost to the other party, the revisionist has not only abused the process of court but also availed adequate opportunity to cross-examine but failed. On 22.01.2019, the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the opportunity was given to lead defence evidence. The accused/revisionist examined three witnesses i.e.DW1, DW2 and DW3 and DE was closed vide order dt 28.02.2020 and the matter beforethe L