The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. in setting aside orders and recalling witnesses, along with the understanding that orders under 311 Cr.P.C. are interlocutory and not maintainable for revision.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"a) Pass an order by setting aside the impugned order dated 16.01.2023 and 24.03.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 8932/2016, by the Ld. Presiding Officer, Special Court, NI Act, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, titled as "S. Swinder Singh vs M/s Bharat Exports Overseas & Ors." and proceedings emanating therefrom; and/or

b) Allow recalling of witness CW 1 for further cross examination/ re-examination in Complaint Case No. 8932/2016, passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, Special Court, NI Act, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, titled as "S. Swinder Singh vs M/s Bharat Exports Overseas & Ors."; and/or

c) Pass an order by setting aside the impugned order dated 28.03.2023 passed in CR. No. 117/2023, passed by the Ld. ASJ, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, titled as "M/s Bharat Exports Overseas & Ors. vs S. Swinder Singh"; and/or

d) Call for records of Complaint Case bearing No. 8392/2016 pending before Ld. Presiding Officer, Special Court, NI Act, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, titled as "S. Swinder Singh vs M/s Bharat Exports Overseas & Ors."; and/or

e) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint was lodged against the petitioner only to extort money. It is further submitted that there are contradictions in the statements of CW-1, i.e., the respondent no.2 (herein). It is further submitted that DW-1, namely, Mahinder Nath Chandok, who is stated to be the agent of CW-1, accepted the payment on behalf of the respondent no. 2 (herein). It is further submitted that the petitioner has already paid the loan amount and, in this regard, the promissory note dated 17.10.2011 signed by the respondent no. 2 himself, which mentions `received payment with interest' at the back of note, acknowledging the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- has been paid by the petitioners.

3. In the instant case, for proper adjudication, it is necessary to look into to the orders dated 16.01.2023 and 28.03.2023.

4. The relevant portion of the order dated 16.01.2023 reads as follows:

"I have perused the application under disposal and also perused the cross examination of CW-1 conducted on behalf of accused. I am of the view that there is no ground for recalling of CW-1 for further cross examination and application has been moved just to delay the case. Cross examination of CW-1 was completed and he was discharged on 23.10.2019. Present application has been moved on 17.10.2022 when the case was going on for hearing final arguments. It shows that this application under disposal was moved just to delay the case."

5. Further, the relevant portion of the order dated 28.03.2023 reads as follows:

"15. At this stage, it is important to refer the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sethuraman vs. Rajamanickam, 2009(5) SCC 153, wherein it was held:

"5.....Secondly, what was not realized was that the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application u/s 311 Cr. P.C., were interlocutory orders and as such, the revision against those orders was clearly barred u/s 397(2) Cr. P.C. The Trial Court, in its common order, had clearly mentioned that the cheque was admittedly signed by the respondent/accused and the only defence that was raised, was that his signed cheques 7 were lost and that the appellant/complainant had falsely used one such cheque. The Trial Court also recorded a finding that the documents were not necessary: This order did not, in any manner, decide anything finally. Therefore both the orders, i.e. one on the application u/s 91 Cr. P.C. for production of documents and other on the auplication u/s 311 Cr. P.C. for recalling the witness were the orders of interlocutory nature. In - which case u/s 397(2