The legal examination emphasized the limitation on revisiting witness testimony post-closure of evidence, balancing judicial efficiency against the right to a fair trial.

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. The present petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the order dated 19.12.2024 [hereafter 'impugned order‘] passed by learned JMFC (NI Act), South-West District, Dwarka, Delhi [hereafter 'Magistrate‘] in CC. No. 46875/2018, titled "Harjeet Singh v. Paras Nath Jha", vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter ' Cr.P.C .‘] seeking the recall of the complainant (respondent herein) was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the present case, as evident from the complaint filed in this case, are that the petitioner had borrowed a friendly cash  loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the respondent on 09.07.2016, owing to which he had executed a promissory note in favour of the respondent. Later, upon several persuasions by the respondent, he had issued a cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/- bearing no. 000002 dated 22.10.2018 drawn on HDFC Bank, RG Complex, Sector-9, Rohini, New Delhi, strongly assuring the respondent of the payment. However, it is alleged that when the respondent had presented the cheque to his banker, i.e. ICICI Bank, Janakpuri, New Delhi for encashment in his account no. 008701006458 on 22.10.2018, to his utter shock and dismay, the cheque had been returned dishonoured with the remarks "Funds Insufficient", based on the return memo dated 24.10.2018. It is stated that thereafter, on 01.11.2018, the respondent had served upon the petitioner a legal notice calling upon him to make the requisite payment; however, the same was not complied with. Accordingly, the respondent was constrained to institute a complaint against the accused for offence under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [hereafter 'NI Act‘].

3. During the course of proceedings, it was at the stage of cross- examination of the respondent that the petitioner doubted the financial capacity of the respondent to advance the loan and sought for production of certain documents, which were allowed; however, the respondent‘s cross-examination had been closed vide order dated 17.02.2023. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent failed to comply with the relevant directions for several months, and it was only on 11.09.2024 that he fully disclosed the relevant documents,  which allegedly revealed some anomalies, which prompted the petitioner to file the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C . seeking the re-call of the respondent-complainant for his examination. However, the said application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 19.12.2024. The relevant content of the impugned order is extracted below:

"1. By virtue of the application filed, the accused has sought to recall CWl to produce additional documents, including income tax returns, balance sheets, and other financial records for the years 2015-16 and 2017-18. The accused contends that such documents are necessary to substantiate his defense that the cheque in question was issued as a security cheque and not towards the repayment of a loan.

2. Through the application, the accused submits that the complainant's cash-in-hand figure of Rs.37,92,494.40/- is disproportionate to the complainant's declared net income of Rs.2,95,030/- for the financial year 2016-17. The accused also seeks clarity on alleged financial obligations, such as salary payments of Rs.41,71,415.73/- and loan amounts of Rs.35,43,211/-, which, according to the accused, are incompatible with the complainant‘s declared financial position. The accused submits that the application is made in good faith and not to delay proceedings, asserting that recalling the complainant is essential for a just adjudication of the matter.

3. On the other hand, the complainant opposes the application