Court held allowing the summoning of a bank official as essential for just decision and affirmation of due process in trials.

O R D E R

% 01.08.2025

1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking setting aside of order dated 21.04.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (NI) Act-01, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

2. Briefly stating the facts are that Respondent No.2 is a reputed publisher of magazines titled "ELLE" and "ELLE DÉCOR" and was approached by Petitioner No.2 and Mrs. Premlata on behalf of Petitioner No.1 for publishing advertisements on behalf of their client, Kanu Kitchen Kulture Pvt. Ltd., from December 2018 to September 2019.

2.1. It is alleged that the said advertisements were duly published and invoices were raised for the same. In part discharge of the alleged liability, Petitioner No.1 is stated to have issued two cheques bearing No. 282679 dated 18.09.2019 for Rs.1,50,675/- and No. 282681 dated 25.09.2019 for Rs.98,175/-, both drawn on J&K Bank. The said cheques were allegedly dishonoured upon presentation with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. CRL.M.C. 5169/2025 Page 1 of 4

2.2. Aggrieved by the non payment of the amount, the petitioner filed the complaint under Section 138 , 141 & 142 of N.I. Act. Subsequently, cognizance was taken on 12.03.2021 and the Petitioners were summoned. Petitioner No. 2 allegedly denied the signatures on the cheques both in the notice framed under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and during his Examination-in- Chief dated 16.07.2024. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of a bank official to verify the signatures, which was opposed by the Petitioners on the ground that no such denial had come during cross-examination. However, the Ld. Trial Court allowed the said application vide order dated 21.04.2025.

3. Learned counsels for the Petitioners would contend that the Ld. Trial Court, while passing the impugned order dated 21.04.2025, failed to consider the objections raised by the Petitioners in their reply to the application under Section 311 CrPC and thereby violated the principles of audi alteram partem. The Respondent No.2 approached the Court with unclean hands and made false submissions in the said application, claiming that the Petitioner No.2 denied his signatures during cross-examination, whereas no such question was put on 16.07.2024. The application was thus based on a false and frivolous ground, going to the root of the matter. The Ld. Trial Court neither considered the contents of the application nor the Petitioners’ reply and wrongly allowed the Respondent No.2 to fill lacuna in it’s case, contrary to the settled proposition of law.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

5. At the very outset, for ready reference, impugned order of learned Trial Court is reproduced as under:

CRL.M.C. 5169/2025 Page 2 of 4 “Matter is pending for orders on application u/s 311 Cr.P.C moved on behalf of the complainant requesting for calling of the witness from the bank of the accused from where the cheque in question was issued for proving the signatures of the accused on the cheque in question.

Arguments already heard. Record perused.

Admittedly as per the record, the accused A2 (Neeraj Kumar) has disputed the signatures on the cheque in question not only at the stage of framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. but throughout the trial. As such it was incumbent on the complainant to prove the signatures of the accused on the cheques in question in order to raise the presumption u/s 139 NI Act in favor of the complainant. However, the complainant has failed to prove the said fact during the course of the trial and it was only at the stage of the final arguments, the said mistake was sought to be rectified by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant by way of present