JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioner seeking setting aside of order dated 11.04.2023 passed by learned Principle District & Sessions Judge, South District, Saket District Courts, Delhi (‘learned Sessions Court’).

2. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’) was filed by the respondent/complainant against the petitioner alleging dishonor of the cheques bearing no. 886175, 886176 and Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.6753/2023 Page 1 of 9 Digitally Signed

886177, all dated 15.07.2019 for a sum of Rs. 6 lacs each, which had got dishonoured vide bank returning memos dated 11.10.2019 with remarks “Insufficient Funds”. The complainant in the same complaint had also alleged the dishonor of cheque bearing no. 886178 dated 15.10.2019 for an amount of Rs.6 lacs which was dishonoured vide return memo dated 23.10.2019 with remarks “Insufficient Funds”. After dishonour of the said cheques, respondent/complainant had sent a common legal notice dated 06.11.2019 to the petitioner and after the petitioner had failed to discharge his liability, the complainant had filed a common complaint i.e. Complaint No. 1398/2020 titled “Mahinder Khari v.

Pawan DhanpatRai Malhotra” under Section 138 of NI Act.

3. The accused/petitioner had moved an application under Section 219 of Cr.P.C. contending that under Section 219 of Cr.P.C., a maximum of 3 cheques can be tried together which had got dishonoured in a span of 12 months and thus, the complaint in its present form was not maintainable. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate (South), NI Act, Saket, Delhi (‘Trial Court’) vide order dated 16.04.2022 had dismissed the application preferred under Section 219 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused and had put up the matter for framing of notice. Thereafter, the right of the accused to cross- examine the complainant/CW-1 was closed by learned Trial Court vide order dated 20.03.2023. The petitioner had then filed a criminal revision petition against the said order before the learned Sessions Court and vide order dated 11.04.2023, the order dated 20.03.2023 passed by learned Trial Court was set aside and an opportunity was Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.6753/2023 Page 2 of 9 Digitally Signed given to the petitioner/accused for cross-examination of complainant/CW-1 subject to the payment of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant.

4. By way of present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.04.2023 passed by learned Sessions Court and seeks its setting aside.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the learned Sessions Court has failed to pass any order in respect of the prayer of the petitioner pertaining to Section 219 of Cr.P.C. and had only passed the impugned order on the aspect of cross-examination which was allowed subject to payment of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant. It is now argued that the cost imposed vide the impugned order dated 11.04.2023 has been paid by the petitioner, however, since no speaking order with respect to all the prayers was passed by the learned Sessions Court, on that ground alone, the impugned order should be set aside. It is further argued that the learned Sessions Court has committed an error in not passing any order with respect to the inherent defect in the complaint of the respondent, and the Courts below have failed to take note of the fact that the complaint is barred under Section 219 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that in the revision petition filed before the learned Sessions Court, the challenge per se was not only to the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant but also on the legal tenability and maintainability of the complaint considering bar under Section 219 of Cr.P.C. Thus, it is prayed that impugned order be set aside.

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C.6753/2023 Page 3 of 9 Digitally Signed

6. Per contra, l