Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Del) 662

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Kailashpati Polyplast Pvt Ltd - Petitioner
Versus
Raghav Industries - Respondent
Crl.M.C. 5131 of 2025, Crl.M.A. 22197 of 2025 (stay), CRL.M.C. 5145 of 2025, CRL.M.A.22289 of 2025 (stay), CRL.M.C. 5146 of 2025, CRL.M.A.22291 of 2025 (stay), CRL.M.C. 5173 of 2025, CRL.M.A. 22361 of 2025 (stay), CRL.M.C. 5096 of 2025, CRL.M.A. 22031 of 2025 (stay)
Decided on : 04-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Mr. Puneet Yadav and Mr. Vasu Dev, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Mr. Shivam Gaur, Mr. Kshitij Joshi, Mr. Aryan Kumar, Ms. Nandita Sharma and Ms. Rashi Singh, Mr. Mayank Maini and Mr. Ankit Verma, Advocates.

Procedural laws facilitate justice but cannot remedy prior evidentiary omissions; applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be judicious and cannot merely fill gaps post final arguments.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 311 and 482 - Petitions challenging Order denying additional evidence under Section 311 - Grave error of law claimed - Court reiterates that procedures assist justice, but cannot compensate for prior omissions - Contradictions in the Respondent’s statements highlighted. (Paras 3, 10, 33, 36)

(B) Namely, the court finds that while procedural laws aid in delivering justice, they cannot be invoked merely to fill evidence gaps evident after final arguments concluded. (Paras 20, 34)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner challenged the refusal to allow additional documents (Certificate under Section 65B of IEA) in five complaints regarding dishonoured cheques for legal liability. Original evidence presented by Petitioner faced contradictions from Respondent, who contested served notice.

Findings of Court:
The Application under Section 311 was prompted to address a legal lacuna, deemed as an improper attempt to alter the case post-final arguments, resulting in dismissing the petitions.

Issues: Whether the Trial Court's refusal for additional evidence under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was erroneous and miscarriage of justice was created.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that Section 311 allows for the introduction of evidence for just decisions, maintaining that procedural gaps cannot be remedied merely post-argument; substantive justice remains paramount.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. filing of numerous complaints under n.i. act. (Para 3 , 4)
2. evidence presentation and contradictions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. approval and dismissal of applications under cr.p.c. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. errors in the trial court's dismissal decision. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. challenging orders and right to fair trial. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
6. role of procedural laws in criminal cases. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
7. section 65b of iea procedural importance. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
8. service of legal notice evidence. (Para 25 , 26)
9. importance of requisite certificate in evidence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
10. filing applications to correct evidential gaps. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
11. criteria for allowing applications under section 311 cr.p.c. (Para 34 , 35)
12. dismissal of petitions due to lack of merit. (Para 36)

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

CRL.M.A. 22288/2025 (Exemption) in CRL.M.C. 5145/2025

CRL.M.A. 22290/2025 (Exemption) in CRL.M.C. 5146/2025

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The Applications stand disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 5131/2025, CRL.M.A. 22197/2025 (stay)

CRL.M.C. 5145/2025, CRL.M.A.22289/2025 (stay)

CRL.M.C. 5146/2025, CRL.M.A.22291/2025 (stay)

CRL.M.C. 5173/2025, CRL.M.A. 22361/2025 (stay)

CRL.M.C. 5096/2025, CRL.M.A. 22031/2025 (stay)

3. Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.N.S.S.’) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Cr.P.C.’) have been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, to challenge the Order dated 21.07.2025 of the learned JMFC-04 (NIACT), New Delhi, in Complaint Case bearing CT Case No. 5807/2019; CT Case No. 5808/2019; CT Case No. 5809/2019; CT Case No. 5810/2019 and CT. Case No. 5811/2019 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’) vide which his Application under Section 311 of Cr.PC, has been dismissed.

4. Brief facts are that the Complainant had filed the aforesaid five Complaints under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the Respondent, in regard to the dishonour of five cheques, for Rs.5,00,000/- each issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner/Company in discharge of its legal liability. The Respondent was summoned and thereafter, Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed. Thereafter, respective parties had led their evidence.

5. According to the Petitioner/Complainant because of the contrary stand taken by the Respondent/Accused in his Application under Section 145(2) of N.I. Act in regard to service of Legal Notice, he was compelled to file First Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for placing additional documents i.e. Invoices and delivery receipts, etc. on record. The Respondent contested the Application and the same was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 21.07.2023.

6. Thereafter, the Complainant led the evidence and examined CW-1, Mr. Priyank Garg (Authorised Representative of the Petitioner Company), who was duly cross-examined by the Respondent on two dates. The evidence of the Petitioner was closed on 15.05.2024. It is also stated that during the course of proceedings, two of the witnesses were dropped from the list of witnesses because the Respondent had admitted before the learned Trial Court that one of the addresses out of the two mentioned on the Notice, were correct and genuine.

7. The Statement of the Respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the Respondent stated that though the second address mentioned on the legal Notice of Demand is correct, but the first address as mentioned is not the complete address.

8. The Respondent thereafter, filed an Application under Section 315 Cr.PC for leading defence evidence. The Respondent thus, appeared as witness in his defence as DW-1 on 04.03.2025, who was duly cross- examined by the Petitioner. In his cross-examination, he took a contradictory stand that both the alleged addresses mentioned in the Complaint, were in