Delhi High Court on Dismissal of Petition under Section 528 BNSS in Cheque Dishonour Case.

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking to set aside the trial court’s order refusing recall of the complainant for further cross-examination in a cheque dishonour case. The Court held that the petitioner’s conduct showed persistent negligence and lack of diligence since 2016. The provision under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (now BNSS equivalent) cannot be used to prolong proceedings due to a litigant’s casual approach, especially in Negotiable Instruments Act cases that require expeditious disposal.

• The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that the respondent borrowed ₹5,00,000 and issued a cheque which was dishonoured for “insufficient funds.”

• A legal notice was issued on 23.12.2014, but payment was not made, leading to the filing of a complaint (CC No. 532014/2016).

• The respondent was summoned on 31.01.2015, and notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed on 27.06.2015.

• The respondent’s application under Section 145(2) NI Act was allowed on 11.07.2016, permitting cross-examination of the complainant.

• Despite several opportunities, the complainant’s cross-examination remained incomplete since 2016, and on 18.04.2023, the trial court closed the complainant’s evidence (CE) due to repeated defaults.

• The petitioner later sought recall under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (for further cross-examination), but the trial court dismissed the application on 10.12.2024.

• The case had been pending at the stage of complainant’s evidence since 2016, showing a prolonged delay caused by the petitioner’s repeated non-appearance and failure to file proper documents.

• The trial court had shown indulgence by granting one more opportunity to lead evidence on 22.07.2023, subject to payment of ₹20,000 costs. However, the petitioner again defaulted and deposited only ₹2,000 on 09.09.2024.

• The Court noted that Section 311 Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent failure of justice, not to grant repeated chances to an indolent party.

• The complainant’s claim that she was unaware of the order closing evidence was found unconvincing, as the record clearly reflected consistent adjournments and her counsel’s inaction.

• The object of the Negotiable Instruments Act is the speedy adjudication of cheque dishonour cases; entertaining such petitions would defeat that purpose.

• Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Power of superior courts regarding transfer or revision of criminal cases.

• Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now BNSS equivalent) – Power to summon material witness or recall witness.

• Sections 138 & 142, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Offences relating to dishonour of cheque and cognizance procedures.

• The High Court found no infirmity in the trial court’s order dismissing the petitioner’s recall application.

• Held that the petitioner’s negligence and repeated absence justified the closure of evidence.

• The petition and all pending applications were dismissed.

Case: Archana Chaudhary v. Harsh Dawar

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Date of Decision: 28 October 2025

Case No.: CRL.M.C. 1412/2025 & CRL.M.A. 6248/2025