The court affirmed that fair trial rights necessitate allowing re-examination of witnesses to ensure all relevant evidence is presented for a just decision, stressing judicious use of discretion under Section 311 CrPC.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. The above-noted petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside of the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Complaint Nos. 1335/2017 and 1336/2017 filed under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act), whereby the applications filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the complainant/petitioner seeking his recall and re-examination have been dismissed.

2. Since the parties are same, both the above-noted petitions shall be disposed of by a common order.

3. Brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, as borne from the material placed on record, are that the aforesaid Criminal Complaints came to be filed by the petitioner in the year 2017 under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the NI Act. In the said complaints, it was stated that the petitioner, who was a retired person, was looking for investment opportunities in property for rental/return income. In the last week of August, 2014, the respondent, claiming to be a big builder, approached the petitioner for selling his two properties i.e., i) property bearing built up entire second floor without roof rights a part of free hold property no. 8/39, land area measuring 100 sq. yards, situated at Subhash Nagar, Delhi, and ii) property bearing built up entire third floor with roof rights a part of property no. 1/75, land area measuring 100 sq. yards, situated at Subhash Nagar, Delhi along with common stair case, common passage, with proportionate rights of land underneath (hereinafter referred to as `the properties'). It was alleged that while a consideration of Rs.80 lacs was agreed upon in respect of the first property, an amount of Rs.50 lacs was agreed upon for the second. Out of the sale consideration amounts of Rs.80 lacs and Rs.50 lacs, Rs.30 lacs and Rs.20 lacs were stated to have been paid as advance to the respondent, with regard to the respective properties, on 18.04.2014 and 01.09.2014, against receipts. As per averments in the Complaints, it was agreed between the parties that the remaining balance amount would be payable on or before 17.07.2014 and 28.02.2015, in connection with each respective property, at the time of registration of the sale deed. Be that as it may, the respondent failed to execute the sale deed in favor of the petitioner and later agreed to return the amounts received as advance payment, i.e. Rs.30 lacs and Rs.20 lacs. To this end, cheques bearing No. 000405 dated 28.08.2017 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi and No. 000014 dated 28.08.2017 drawn on HDFC Bank, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, were issued in favor of the petitioner. However, on presentation, the aforesaid cheques got dishonored with the remarks `funds insufficient' and upon issuance of demand notice dated 28.09.2017, the respondent failed to make the payment of outstanding cheque amounts, resulting in filing of the aforesaid Criminal Complaints.

4. Mr. Alok Bhachawat, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that initially Collaboration Agreements dated 13.10.2011 and 20.09.2013 were executed in favor of the respondent by the erstwhile owners of the properties aforementioned, whereby ownership rights were created in his favor. At the time of payment of Rs.30 lacs and Rs.20 lacs by the petitioner as advance, in respect of each transaction, Bayana Agreements dated 18.04.2014 and 01.09.2014, and respective Receipts of the same date were also executed. It is submitted that inadvertently the aforesaid documents could no