O R D E R

% 28.03.2025

1. The present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [1“Cr.P.C.”] and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [2“BNSS”], read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 5^th March, 2025, passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi. By the said order the Revisional Court dismissed Petitioner’s challenge to the order dated 5^th August, 2024, passed by the JMFC (NI Act)-01, South, Saket Courts, Delhi. By the order dated 5^th August, 2024, the JMFC rejected the Petitioner’s application under Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, [3“EvidenceAct”], resulting in the closure of the Petitioner’s right to lead defence evidence.

CRL.M.C.2027/2025 Page1of5

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows:

2.1. The Respondent instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881⁴, which is presently pending before the Court of JMFC. During trial, the Petitioner partly cross-examined the Complainant’s witness, but failed conclude the same. Consequently, on 20^th March, 2023, Trial Court closed the Petitioner’s right to further cross- examine the witness. Aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred a revision petition, which was allowed by the Revisional Court vide order dated 11^th April, 2023, granting one final opportunity to cross-examine the witness, subject to payment of costs of INR 1,00,000/-. Although the cost was duly paid, the Petitioner did not avail the opportunity, resulting in the closure of his right for the second time on 1^st May, 2023. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached this Court by way of Crl. M.C. 6753/2023, assailing the order dated 11^th April, 2023, which too was dismissed by order dated 17^th October, 2023.

2.2. The matter then proceeded to the next stage. The statement of the Petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 27^th October, 2023, wherein he expressed his intention to lead defence evidence. Pursuant thereto, on 16^th December, 2023, the Petitioner filed an application seeking summoning of certain documents from the Complainant. This application was dismissed on 10^th January, 2024, with the Trial Court observing that the Petitioner had failed to establish that the documents sought were in the possession of the Complainant. Nonetheless, one final opportunity was granted to the Petitioner to lead defence evidence on the next date of hearing.

2.3 However, despite several opportunities provided to the Petitioner , no CRL.M.C.2027/2025 Page2of5 defence evidence, was led. Considering this fact, on 5^th August, 2024 nearly 10 months later, after the recording of the Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the Trial Court passed the following order, closing the Petitioner’s right to lead evidence:

“Matter is at thestageofDE.

As per the record, statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 27.10.2023 wherein accused has stated that he wish to lead DE. Record further reveals that since 27.10.2023 many opportunities have been given to the accused to lead DE. Further as per the record last opportunity to lead DE was granted by this Court firstly on 10.01.2024 thereafter on 06.02.2024 and thereafter on 01.05.2024. Despite aforesaid directions no DE has been led today on behalf of the accused. Further till today an application u/s 165 Indian Evidence Act has been filed on behalf of the accused requesting for summoning of the complainant alongwith certain documents and for examination of the complainant by this Court. Copy alreadysuppliedtoLd.Counsel for thecomplainant.

I have heard the arguments on the application and perused the record.

Needless to say that the present application has been filed primarily to delay the trial further and has no merit merits and is also misconceived as per settled law in respect of the matters pertaining 138NI Act.Accordingly,application stands dismissed.Disposedoffaccordingly.

Since today as well it is submitted by the Ld. C