Knife Never Found, Depth of Wounds Unknown: Delhi HC Refuses To Upgrade Stabbing Conviction From Grievous Hurt To Attempt To Murder 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' Belongs To Kamdhenu, Not Ashiana: Delhi HC Finds 2002 Agreement Was A Licence, Not An Assignment — Grants Injunction Against Steel Rival Land Acquired In 2004 At ₹19,660/sq.m — Company Can Now Claim ₹1,30,000/sq.m After Neighbour's Plot Gets That Rate: Delhi HC Allows Amendment After 16 Years State Used Eminent Domain to Hand Over 53 Acres to a Non-Existent Company: Karnataka High Court Quashes Acquisition, Orders CBI Investigation Trademark | Passing Off Action Requires Only Likelihood Of Confusion, Not Strict Proof Of Counterfeiting: Madras High Court Buyer Failing To Pay Full Amount On Time Cannot Sustain Cheating Case If Seller Transfers Property To Third Party: Madhya Pradesh High Court State Cannot Arbitrarily Deviate From Merit-Based Posting SOP For Senior Resident Doctors: Calcutta High Court Ready Reckoner Rates Cannot Form Sole Basis For Determining Land Acquisition Compensation: Bombay High Court MACT Cannot Decide Personal Accident Claims of Vehicle Owners: Madras High Court Sets Aside Rs. 15 Lakh Award Specific Performance | Sale Agreement to Cheat Stamp Duty Is Void, But Buyer Still Gets Money Back: Madras High Court Higher Degree Cannot Substitute Essential Work Experience; Preference Operates Only Among Eligible Candidates: Supreme Court Legal Representatives Aggrieved By Arbitral Award Must Challenge It Under Section 34 Arbitration Act, Not Article 227: Supreme Court Advocates Can’t Use Press Conferences To Scandalise Judges; Grievances Must Be Ventilated Through Legal Remedies: Supreme Court Property Register Entry Not Proof Of Ownership: Supreme 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