At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court

High Court Dismisses Petition to Recall Witness in Cheque Dishonor Case, Citing Delay Tactics

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today dismissed a petition filed by M/s Della Technica, challenging the decision of a lower court in a cheque dishonor case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioners had sought to quash an order that partly allowed the recall of witnesses during the trial proceedings.

Justice Deepak Gupta, presiding over the case, observed, "The present petition appears to be not only an attempt to delay the proceedings but also a tactic to overcome the order." This remark came as the court scrutinized the petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which challenged the Judicial Magistrate's decision in Ludhiana.

The case stemmed from a transaction involving the purchase of a woodworking machine, where a cheque issued by the petitioners was returned due to 'payment stopped by the drawer'. The petitioners, accused in the case, had moved an application under Section 311 of the Cr.PC for recalling the complainant for further cross-examination and re-examining a defense witness to prove certain financial documents.

The High Court, in its judgment, referred to previous orders setting specific deadlines for the cross-examination of witnesses. It noted the lack of justification for recalling the complainant after a considerable delay. The court's decision underlined the importance of adhering to procedural timelines, emphasizing that the legal system cannot be bogged down by unnecessary delays.

Representing the petitioners, Mr. H.S. Dhindsa argued for a fair trial, asserting that the intention was not to waste the court's time. However, the respondent, represented by Mr. Neeraj Jain, opposed the petition, highlighting it as a strategy to prolong the legal process.

The High Court's decision to dismiss the petition reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to expediting legal proceedings and curtailing delay tactics. This judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in ensuring that justice is delivered in a timely and efficient manner.

Date of Decision: 14th December 2023

M/s Della Technica and another VS M/s Jai Jagdamba Enterprises

 

Latest Legal News