The main legal point established in the judgment is that cross-examination must be relevant to the matter at hand and must not descend to harassment and humiliation of the witness.

Headnote:
Section 138 - Negotiable Instruments Act - 482 Cr.P.C. - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 to 16, 135, 136, 137, 138 - The court discussed the relevance of questions in cross-examination, the right to cross-examine witnesses, and the limitations on cross-examination. It emphasized that cross-examination must be relevant to the matter at hand and to the rival stands, elucidating or disproving the rival cases. The court concluded that the disallowed questions were irrelevant to the case at hand and upheld the order disallowing them.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent. During the cross-examination of DW-2, the Trial Court disallowed two questions as irrelevant. The petitioner sought to challenge this decision under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the disallowed questions were irrelevant to the case at hand and upheld the Trial Court's decision. It dismissed the petition and clarified that the order was not an expression on the merits of the case to be decided after due trial.
Issues: The main issue was the relevance of the disallowed questions in the cross-examination of DW-2 and whether the Trial Court erred in disallowing them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that cross-examination must be relevant to the matter at hand and to the rival stands, elucidating or disproving the rival cases. It also highlighted the limitations on cross-examination, stating that it cannot be a vexatious or roving inquiry and must not descend to harassment and humiliation of the witness.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the order was uploaded on the website forthwith.

ORDER

1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner/complainant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order/cross-examination dated 7th May, 2022 in Complaint Case No.19224/2016.

2. The petitioner had filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`N.I. Act') against the respondent. The grievance is that as per the order dated 7th July, 2022, during the course of examination of DW-2, the learned Trial Court disallowed two questions, as being irrelevant to the matter in issue.

3. Mr. Praveen Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Trial Court had erred in disallowing the two questions. It was submitted that the petitioner has filed other cases against the respondent and her daughter-in-law, as also Swarn Singh for various amounts, both under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as well as for recovery before the Civil Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the instant case had been filed when the cheque issued by the respondent was dishonoured. The respondent was the one who had given the post dated cheque No.871958 dated 11th March, 2016 for a sum of Rs.17 Lakhs drawn on Cooperative Bank and had signed the promissory note also. This cheque was given towards repayment of a friendly loan/financial assistance to the tune of Rs.17 Lakhs given by the petitioner for a period of two months to the respondent, who was then in dire need of money.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defence raised by the respondent, recorded in the notice served to her under Section 215 Cr.P.C., was that the loan had been taken by her son and she had no legal liability in the matter. She admitted her signatures on the cheque. Her stand was that the cheque had been obtained from her as her son Vikas Khurana was in dire need of money and that too in the sum of Rs.2 Lakhs for a period of six months. Therefore, the cheque in question had been misused.

5. In that context, according to the petitioner, the complainant had been asked questions in this regard during his cross-examination (placed on the e-file at pages 70 to 79). Therefore, the petitioner/complainant be given the opportunity to ask the questions and further cross-examine the son of the respondent, who was examined as DW-2.

6. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the relevancy of the question in terms of the Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Since the matter related to the claim of the accused, therefore, the questions were relevant to determine existence or non-existence of the fact. It was submitted that law gave a right to the petitioner to put a question for the purposes of impeaching the creditworthiness of the witness DW-2 and thus, the two questions were relevant and be allowed to be put to the witness.

7. Mr. Gurpreet Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that witness DW-2 had been summoned and examined only to prove the CD. The questions in cross-examination had to be related to the examination-in-chief and could not be unrelated questions. It was submitted that the two questions specifically put to the witnesses were vague and the question put was relating "any other transaction" and such a fishing question was not relevant at all. It was also submitted that the present petition was not maintainable and the petition was liable to be dismissed.

8. I have heard the submissions of both the counsel and have perused the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court being R.K. Chandolia Vs. CBI & Ors., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2047 relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent.

9. This very judgment would be a reply to the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent that the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. The court is not precluded in looking into the matter to decide whether there has been any error or perversity in the order under challenge