The Delhi High Court has ruled that merely changing a lawyer cannot justify recalling a witness for fresh cross-examination in cheque bounce cases. The court warned that such practices would cause delays and turn criminal trials into never-ending proceedings.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has sent a strong message against delay tactics in cheque dishonour prosecutions, ruling that a mere change of counsel cannot justify recalling a complainant for fresh cross-examination. The Court warned that allowing such pleas routinely would convert criminal trials into “never-ending” proceedings.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja delivered the ruling in the case of Sh. Vimal Ghai vs Sh. M. P. Sharma on January 5, 2026, while dismissing a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging dishonour of a cheque issued by the accused towards discharge of a legal liability.
According to the complainant (Sh. M. P. Sharma):
- The cheque was returned unpaid with the endorsement “Payment stopped by drawer” on 30 June 2020
- A statutory demand notice dated 28 July 2020 was served
- Despite notice, payment was not made, leading to criminal prosecution
The accused was summoned, and during the trial, the complainant was cross-examined on three separate dates: 03 December 2022, 22 December 2022, and 07 March 2023. The matter later proceeded to the defence evidence stage.
Application Under Section 311 CrPC
In 2024, the accused (Sh. M. P. Sharma) filed an application under Section 311 CrPC, seeking the recall of the complainant for re-examination. The ground taken was that:
- The accused had allegedly repaid the loan in instalments
- Signed receipts existed, which the complainant falsely denied
- The previous counsel failed to ask crucial questions during cross-examination
The trial court dismissed the application on 05 March 2024, holding that sufficient opportunity had already been granted. A criminal revision before the Sessions Court also failed on 10 May 2024.
The accused then approached the Delhi High Court.
Arguments Before the High Court
Petitioner’s Contentions
The petitioner argued that:
- He should not suffer due to the negligence or lapse of his earlier advocate
- Material facts could not come on record because of improper cross-examination
- Recall of the complainant was necessary for a just decision
- He was willing to proceed with the trial on a day-to-day basis to avoid delay
Respondent’s Stand
The complainant opposed the plea, contending that:
- Cross-examination was already conducted extensively over three hearings
- The recall application was filed after nearly two years
- Allowing recall would amount to filling up lacunae
- Section 311 was being misused as a delay tactic
Court’s Analysis
Justice Ravinder Dudeja reiterated that while Section 311 CrPC grants wide discretionary power, it must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only to prevent failure of justice.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents such as:
- Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P.
- State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav
- Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat
The Court emphasised that the recall of a witness is not a matter of course.
Rejecting the core argument of the petitioner, the Court held:
“A newly engaged counsel steps into the shoes of the previous counsel. A different legal strategy cannot be a ground for recalling a witness.”
The Court warned that if such reasoning were accepted:
- Every change of lawyer would result in fresh cross-examination
- Trials would become never-ending
- Witnesses would face repeated harassment and inconvenience
The Court also referred to its earlier decision in Govind Mandal vs State of NCT of Delhi, reiterating that a change of counsel alone cannot trigger a recall under Section 311 CrPC.
ALSO READ: Cheque Bounce Case: Delhi High Court Issues Practice Directions Speed Up Disposal
While acknowledging that a fair trial is a component of Article 21, the Court clarified that fairness must be viewed holistically. Quoting the Supreme Court, Justice Dudeja observed:
“Fairness of trial has to be seen not only from the point of view of the accused, but also from the point of view of the victim and society.”
The Court cautioned that:
- The criminal justice system cannot be held to ransom
- Repeated recall of witnesses causes undue hardship
- Mere assertions of “fair trial” are insufficient without tangible prejudice
The Delhi High Court found no infirmity in the orders passed by the trial court and the sessions court. It held that:
- The complainant had already been cross-examined at length
- The accused had an adequate opportunity to present his defence
- The recall application was an attempt to delay proceedings
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, and the trial was directed to continue from its existing stage.
Case Title:
Sh. Vimal Ghai vs Sh. M. P. Sharma
CRL.M.C. 4782/2024
READ JUDGMENT
Read More Reports On Cheque Bounce Case