IMPORTANT POINT
The discretionary power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised judiciously and only for strong and valid reasons to prevent abuse of the process of law and ensure expeditious conclusion of trials, especially in cases under Section 138 of the NI Act.

JUDGMENT

1. These petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, `Cr.P.C.'), challenging the Order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03 (NI Act), New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Trial Court') in the complaints filed by the petitioner herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the `NI Act'), being Complaint Case no.54783/2016 (in CRL M.C. 1171/2022) and Complaint Case no.53009/2016 (in CRL M.C. 1172/2022), both titled Rahul Darbari v. Arun Kumar Khobragade & Ors., dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling himself as a witness.

Factual Matrix:

2. The above complaints were filed by the petitioner on 26.09.2015.

3. The respondents filed petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., one of them being Crl.M.C. No. 2496/2016, seeking quashing of the said complaints.

4. The petitioner herein, as a respondent in the above petition, filed his counter affidavit, and the respondents, as petitioners in those petitions, filed their rejoinders.

5. The said petitions were dismissed by this Court vide its judgment and Order dated 18.02.2019.

6. Notice under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. was framed against the respondents vide Order dated 08.04.2019. The respondent pleaded not guilty and requested for a trial.

7. The petitioner, on 16.09.2019, filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to place on record the pleadings and documents filed in the above mentioned petitions filed by the respondents.

8. The respondents filed their reply to the above application on 09.10.2019.

9. The said application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was withdrawn by the petitioner on 23.10.2019.

10. The petitioner closed his evidence on 03.03.2020.

11. The statement of the respondents/accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 10.12.2021, and as they did not wish to lead any evidence in their defence, the matter was put up for final arguments, as is recorded in the order dated 14.12.2021.

12. It is at this stage, that the petitioner filed the above application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., on 11.01.2022, wishing to place on record copies of the petitions filed by the accused/respondents herein under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before this Court, along with the documents filed therein; the counter affidavit(s) and the rejoinder(s) filed in those proceedings; copy of the Order dated 18.02.2019 of this Court passed in the said petitions; and e-mail correspondences between the complainant and the accused, which, to the own assertion of the petitioner, formed part of the counter(s) filed to the petitions by the respondents herein before this Court.

13. The said application has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court by the Impugned Order dated 18.02.2022.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner:

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents that are now sought to be produced on record, are one of the petitions filed earlier by the respondent, being Crl.M.C. No. 2496/2016, titled Arun Kumar Khobragade v. Rahul Darbari; the counter affidavit(s) and the rejoinder(s) filed therein; and the Order dated 18.02.2019 passed by this Court thereon. He submits that the same being matter of record, should be allowed to be placed on record and should be considered by the learned Trial Court in order to have a complete and fair adjudication of the complaint filed by the petitioner.

15. He submits that the best available evidence should be allowed to be brought before the Court, and the petitioner should not be deprived of producing such evidence. He submits that the Court should, in fact, be magnanimous even in permitting mistakes to be cured. In support, he places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in U.T. of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Anr v. Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, (