$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 22.09.2025

Pronounced on: 17.12.2025

Uploaded on: 17.12.2025

+ CRL.M.C. 1286/2025 & CRL.M.A. 5763/2025 STAY

SHELLEY MARWAH .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Atul Sahi, Advocate.

versus

STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan,

APP.

Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate

for R-2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

JUDGMENT

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”](Section 482 CrPC), seeking quashing of the order dated 07.02.2025 [“impugned order”], passed by the Court of Learned JMFC, NI Act-02, (Cental), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [“trial court”], whereby the application under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure [“Code”] filed by the Petitioner, for

summoning the record of Complaint Case bearing No.13981/2017 titled Ghanshyam Dass v. Rajesh Marwah was dismissed.

2. The brief facts are that the Complainant/Respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [“NI Act”] alleging that in October 2017 he advanced a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Only) to the Petitioner, who in discharge of liability issued a cheque bearing no. 288933 dated 22.11.2017 drawn on ICICI Bank. The cheque was dishonoured with remarks “Funds Insufficient”. Despite legal notice, payment was not made, leading to filing of Complaint Case No.134/2018.

3. During trial, the petitioner sought to summon the record of another case Complaint Case bearing No. 13981/2017 (Ghanshyam Dass v. Rajesh Marwah) where Respondent No.2 had appeared as attorney and allegedly admitted receipt of payments from the petitioner’s family. The application was moved by the Petitioner under Section 311 CrPC before the trial court, but the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 07.02.2025.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant Upender Gupta was the power of attorney holder in all the other cases filed against him and his wife and one such case being that of Ghanshyam Dass Vs. Rajesh Marwah bearing CC No. 13981/2017. The cross examination of the accused therein i.e. Rajesh Marwah was conducted under the supervision and instructions of complainant Upender Gupta and therein it was categorically put to witness Rajesh Marwah that the money paid/deposited by him in the account of Upender Gupta was not towards the alleged debt of Ghanshyam Dass but was towards some other debt of Upender Gupta.

5. It has been submitted that due to inadvertence, the said testimony was not brought on record, but the learned trial court, without applying its mind, dismissed the application in a complete arbitrary and pre-conceived manner. The grant of one opportunity would not have caused any prejudice to the complainant, more particularly, when the specific and limited prayer was made in the application.

6. It is argued that the matter is at the stage of final arguments, which are yet not commenced. The benevolent provisions of Section 311 Cr. PC empower the court to allow the application at the stage of the trial and just because the trial is at the fag-end the same would not operate as a bar for allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.PC. Reliance has been placed on P. Sanjeeva Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2012) 7 SCC 56, Natash Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (State) (2013) 5 SCC 741, Godrej Pacific Tech Ltd. Vs. Computer joint India Ltd (2008) 3 JCC 2010, Nandkumar Rajkumar Harane Vs. Vishwas Vilasrao Kshirsagar & Anr, 2012CRI.L.J 542 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

7. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial court arguing that the trial is at the stage of final arguments and the petitioner is only attempting to delay the proceedings and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It was further argued that as per order dated 07.02.2025, it h