SHARMA WELDING STORE & ORS. vs FORTUNE WELD - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7894

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7894

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SHARMA WELDING STORE & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
FORTUNE WELD – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-7811/2025

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The petitioners/accused sought to recall a witness for cross-examination at a late stage of the trial, claiming their inability to do so earlier due to counsel’s health issues and COVID-19 disruptions (!) (!) (!) .
The trial was at the stage of final arguments, and multiple opportunities had already been granted to the accused for cross-examination, which they failed to utilize despite extensions and repeated opportunities (!) (!) .
The courts below found that the accused had numerous opportunities over several years to cross-examine the witness but chose not to, and their delay was considered a conduct issue and a potential tactic to cause delay (!) (!) .
The petitioners argued that their previous counsel’s health issues and COVID-19 disruptions justified their inability to cross-examine, but the courts did not accept these grounds, emphasizing that procedural adjustments during COVID-19 did not absolve the parties from acting diligently (!) (!) .
The courts held that recall of a witness at this advanced stage is not a matter of right and is only permitted in exceptional circumstances, which were not demonstrated here (!) (!) .
The petitioners had already exercised their statutory right of revision against a previous order refusing recall, which was dismissed, and they are now attempting to challenge the same issues again through the inherent jurisdiction of the court, which is barred by law (!) (!) (!) .
The courts concluded that the present petition was essentially a second revision disguised as a miscellaneous petition, which is not permissible under the applicable legal provisions (!) (!) (!) .
The overall stance was that the petition lacked merit, was an attempt to re-agitate issues already decided, and was filed to cause unnecessary delay, leading to its dismissal (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this document.

$~79

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 7811/2025, CRL.M.A. 32720/2025 & CRL.M.A. 32721/2025

SHARMA WELDING STORE & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Paras Sharma, Adv.

versus

FORTUNE WELD .....Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

JUDGMENT

% 06.11.2025

AJAY DIGPAUL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”) is preferred by the petitioners/accused, seeking interference of this Court in relation to CT Case No. 8902/2017 titled “Fortune Weld vs Sharma Welding Store & Ors.” pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter “learned MM/Trial Court”).

2. This Court notes that CC No. 8902/2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter “NI Act”) was instituted on 30.09.2014 before the learned MM by the complainant/respondent “Fortune Weld” against the petitioners. The complainant asserts supply of welding material under invoices aggregating to approximately Rs.19,83,091/- and alleges that only Rs.10,53,283/- was received. Three cheques bearing nos. 732185 (Rs.3,62,261/- dated 22.07.2014), 732188 (Rs.3,32,241/- dated 23.07.2014) and 732187 (Rs.1,80,626/- dated 24.07.2014), drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Wazirpur Industrial Estate, New Delhi, were presented and allegedly returned with the reason “Exceeds Arrangement”. Legal demand notice is stated to have been issued on 21.08.2014. Formal complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed and in compliance of the summoning order, the accused appeared.

3. On 11.12.2017, notice under Section 251 of the CrPC was framed and the accused pleaded not guilty. On 23.05.2018, an application filed by the petitioners under Section 145(2) of the NI Act for cross-examination of the complainant was allowed.

4. On 05.09.2018, the right of cross-examination stood closed and CW-1 was discharged. It is stated that directions were again issued on 20.09.2021 and 02.02.2022 that CW-1 be physically present for cross-examination. On 25.03.2023, right of the accused to cross-examine CW-1 again stood closed. On 21.01.2025, it was recorded by the learned Trial Court that the petitioners are waiving their right to defence evidence and the matter was fixed for final arguments.

5. Thereafter, on 23.04.2025, the accused filed an application under Section 311 of the CrPC for recall of complainant (CW-1) for cross-examination. The same was dismissed by the learned MM vide order dated 06.06.2025. Criminal Revision No. 365/2025 preferred by the accused before the learned ASJ against order dated 06.06.2025 was dismissed on 21.08.2025 on the grounds that the order dated 06.06.2025 is an interlocutory order and thus, revision against the same was not maintainable. The learned ASJ dismissed the said revision petition on merits as well, thereby, upholding the decision of the learned MM. Thus, the present petition.

6. Mr. Paras Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the trial before the learned MM is at the stage of final arguments on 07.11.2025, however the complainant has never been cross-examined even once. It is submitted that the petitioners filed an application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act on 23.05.2018 seeking permission to cross-examine CW-1 and the same was allowed. The petitioners submit that the matter was listed for cross-examination on multiple dates including 05.09.2018, 20.09.2021 and 02.02.2022 but cross-examination could not be conducted. The petitioners aver that during 2020–2022 several dates fell during Covid-19 period when virtual hearings were functioning and the complainant’s physical presence could not be secured.

7. It is submitted that petitioners’ previous counsel was undergoing major heart surgery and treatment, which caused prolon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7894

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHISHARMA WELDING STORE & ORS. – AppellantVersusFORTUNE WELD – RespondentCRL.M.C.-7811/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SHARMA WELDING STORE & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
FORTUNE WELD – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-7811/2025