The Delhi High Court has dismissed a revision against the rejection of an application under Section 311 CrPC to recall the complainant in a cheque dishonour case, holding that witnesses cannot be recalled in a routine manner and that counsel being held up in another court on the date is not sufficient ground, since the case has been pending since 2018.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a trial court order rejecting an accused’s application to recall the complainant for cross-examination in a cheque dishonour case, holding that the right to cross-examine had been closed on March 30, 2019 and that counsel having been held up in another court on that date is no sufficient ground to recall a witness who has already been examined [Lalit Pandey v. Sanjay Agarwal].
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order on September 14, 2026 in Crl.Rev.P. 257/2022. The petitioner challenged the trial court’s order of March 1, 2021 rejecting his application under Section 311 of the CrPC. The order describes the case as one relating to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The plea
The Court recorded that the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant was closed on March 30, 2019. His counsel submitted that on that date he was held up in another court. The respondent did not appear before the High Court.
The Court’s reasoning
Justice Kaurav noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that witnesses cannot be recalled routinely merely because cross-examination was not properly conducted. He relied on State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav, in which the Supreme Court observed that witnesses cannot be expected to face the hardship of appearing in court repeatedly, that a bare reference to fair trial is not enough without tangible reasons showing how the trial suffered without a recall, and that “recall is not a matter of course”. The Supreme Court added that a plea for recall must be bona fide and balanced against hardship to witnesses and delay in the trial.
Pendency of cheque bounce cases
The Court observed that there is a huge pendency of Section 138 cases across Delhi, and that parties and counsel are expected to cooperate in their expeditious disposal. It said that once a witness is available, examination and cross-examination ought to take place on the same date, and that requests for repeated adjournments have consistently been deprecated. Bearing in mind that the matter has been pending since 2018, it found no sufficient ground to recall a witness already examined, and dismissed the petition.
Why it matters
The order applies the Supreme Court’s caution on recall of witnesses to a cheque dishonour trial, and treats counsel’s absence in another court, on its own, as not enough to reopen cross-examination once the right has been closed. It stresses that cross-examination should ordinarily take place on the day the witness is available.
The order does not decide the merits of the underlying complaint, and it turns on the facts recorded: the closing of cross-examination in 2019, the explanation given for counsel’s absence, and the age of the case. The trial will now proceed without the complainant being recalled.
Case Title: Lalit Pandey v. Sanjay Agarwal [Crl.Rev.P. 257/2022]
Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: September 14, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Aaditya appeared for the petitioner. No one appeared for the respondent.