High Court

1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Anubhav Sinha (AOR No.A/A- 0122/2016) on behalf of opposite party no.2 in both the applications is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants (in the leading as well as connected applications), Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State/O.P. No.1 and Sri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 in both the applications.

3. A joint statement has been made by the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit and application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties the application is being decided at the fresh stage.

4. The case of the applicants in the leading application is that a complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 21.11.2017 with an allegation that three cheques stood dishonoured on 20.9.2017 and post issuance of the statutory demand notice the complaint was preferred. On 19.5.2018 the applicants were summoned.

5. Submission is that during the course of the trial on 9.1.2020 the opportunity of the applicants to lead evidence/cross examination was closed. Thereafter, an application came to be preferred for recalling of the order dated 9.1.2020 which was recalled on a payment of cost of Rs.250/-, thereafter on 30.5.2023 again opportunity of cross-examination/leading evidence was closed. An application was preferred for recalling of the order dated which came to be recalled on 8.12.2023 which has been wrongly mentioned on 8.11.2022 on a cost of Rs.300/- thereafter again on 15.2.2024 due to the laxity and apathy on the part of the complainant, the opportunity for cross-examination of the accused was closed and the date was fixed for 6.3.2024. Thereafter, on 6.3.2024 the evidence of the complainant was closed and on 25.7.2024 another application came to be preferred by the applicants for recalling of the order dated 6.3.2024 which was rejected. Thereafter, another application was preferred for recalling of the order dated 15.2.2024 which was dismissed on 28.11.2024. Another application came to be preferred for recalling of the said order on 17.4.2025 which has been rejected. The said order has been subject matter of challenge in the leading application.

6. So far as the connected application is concerned, the complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 with relation to dishonouring of three cheques, a statutory legal notice was issued on 19.10.2017 followed by a complaint on 21.11.2017. On 19.5.2018 summoning order was passed, summoning the applicants. In the connected application on 9.1.2020 the opportunity to lead evidence/cross-examination was rejected. An application was also preferred for recalling of the order. The opportunity to cross-examine/lead evidence of the accused was closed on 26.04.2023. On 30.05.2023, opportunity was closed for cross-examination leading evidence of the applicants. A recall application came to be preferred for recalling of the order dated 30.5.2023 which came to be rejected on 8.12.2023 wrongly typed at 8.12.2022. On 15.2.2024 the opportunity to cross- examine/evidence was closed. On 6.3.2024 another order came to be passed whereby the application preferred by the applicants was rejected, the evidence of the opposite party no.2 was closed. An application was preferred for recalling of the order dated 6.3.2024 which came to be rejected on 25.7.2024. On 28.11.2024 the application seeking recall of the order dated 15.2.2024 was rejected. The case was directed to be proceeded in 313 of the Cr.P.C. Another application preferred for recall of order dated 15.2.2024 which has also been rejected on 17.4.2025. The said orders have been subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants in both the applications have submitted that due to bona fide reasons and compulsions which was beyond the comprehension and control of the applicants, the opportunity could not be availed for cross-examination/leading evidence but in case a one last is accorded then as per the instructions from his client they will not take any further adjournment in that regard.

8. Sri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that dilatory tactics has been adopted by the applicants in both the application, however, he as per the instructions submits that looking into the facts and the circumstances of the case and in order to avoid any technical infirmity, he submits that one last opportunity be accorded to the applicants to lead evidence or make cross examination but they should be any adjournment of any kind.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has as per the instructions from the client is in a position to make a statement and the client will not take any adjournment. Looking into the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the case and as well as the stand taken by the respective parties, the order dated 15.2.2024 is set aside. The court below is directed to fix a date in third week of May, 2025 for adducing the evidence/cross- examination and the proceedings in both the cases which are subject matter of leading and connected applications be conducted without granting any adjournment whatsoever. If possible the court below shall hear the matter on day-today basis and conclude the said proceedings strictly in accordance with the provisions contained under Sub-Section(3) of Section 143 of the N.I. Act, 1881.

10. Since the parties are represented through their counsels, thus, it would be deemed that they have full knowledge of orders passed by this Court. The orders passed by this Court shall be filed before the court below by 13th May, 2025.

11. Accordingly, both the applications are disposed of. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 piyush

1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Anubhav Sinha (AOR No.A/A- 0122/2016) on behalf of opposite party no.2 in both the applications is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants (in the leading as well as connected applications), Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State/O.P. No.1 and Sri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 in both the applications.

3. A joint statement has been made by the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit and application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties the application is being decided at the fresh stage.

4. The case of the applicants in the leading application is that a complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 21.11.2017 with an allegation that three cheques stood dishonoured on 20.9.2017 and post issuance of the statutory demand notice the complaint was preferred. On 19.5.2018 the applicants were summoned.

5. Submission is that during the course of the trial on 9.1.2020 the opportunity of the applicants to lead evidence/cross examination was closed. Thereafter, an application came to be preferred for recalling of the order dated 9.1.2020 which was recalled on a payment of cost of Rs.250/-, thereafter on 30.5.2023 again opportunity of cross-examination/leading evidence was closed. An application was preferred for recalling of the order dated which came to be recalled on 8.12.2023 which has been wrongly mentioned on 8.11.2022 on a cost of Rs.300/- thereafter again on 15.2.2024 due to the laxity and apathy on the part of the complainant, the opportunity for cross-examination of the accused was closed and the date was fixed for 6.3.2024. Thereafter, on 6.3.2024 the evidence of the complainant was closed and on 25.7.2024 another application came to be preferred by the applicants for recalling of the order dated 6.3.2024 which was rejected. Thereafter, another application was preferred for recalling of the order dated 15.2.2024 which was dismissed on 28.11.2024. Another application came to be preferred for recalling of the said order on 17.4.2025 which has been rejected. The said order has been subject matter of challenge in the leading application.

6. So far as the connected application is concerned, the complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 with relation to dishonouring of three cheques, a statutory legal notice was issued on 19.10.2017 followed by a complaint on 21.11.2017. On 19.5.2018 summoning order was passed, summoning the applicants. In the connected application on 9.1.2020 the opportunity to lead evidence/cross-examination was rejected. An application was also preferred for recalling of the order. The opportunity to cross-examine/lead evidence of the accused was closed on 26.04.2023. On 30.05.2023, opportunity was closed for cross-examination leading evidence of the applicants. A recall application came to be preferred for recalling of the order dated 30.5.2023 which came to be rejected on 8.12.2023 wrongly typed at 8.12.2022. On 15.2.2024 the opportunity to cross- examine/evidence was closed. On 6.3.2024 another order came to be passed whereby the application preferred by the applicants was rejected, the evidence of the opposite party no.2 was closed. An application was preferred for recalling of the order dated 6.3.2024 which came to be rejected on 25.7.2024. On 28.11.2024 the application seeking recall of the order dated 15.2.2024 was rejected. The case was directed to be proceeded in 313 of the Cr.P.C. Another application preferred for recall of order dated 15.2.2024 which has also been rejected on 17.4.2025. The said orders have been subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants in both the applications have submitted that due to bona fide reasons and compulsions which was beyond the comprehension and control of the applicants, the opportunity could not be availed for cross-examination/leading evidence but in case a one last is accorded then as per the instructions from his client they will not take any further adjournment in that regard.

8. Sri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that dilatory tactics has been adopted by the applicants in both the application, however, he as per the instructions submits that looking into the facts and the circumstances of the case and in order to avoid any technical infirmity, he submits that one last opportunity be accorded to the applicants to lead evidence or make cross examination but they should be any adjournment of any kind.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has as per the instructions from the client is in a position to make a statement and the client will not take any adjournment. Looking into the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the case and as well as the stand taken by the respective parties, the order dated 15.2.2024 is set aside. The court below is directed to fix a date in third week of May, 2025 for adducing the evidence/cross- examination and the proceedings in both the cases which are subject matter of leading and connected applications be conducted without granting any adjournment whatsoever. If possible the court below shall hear the matter on day-today basis and conclude the said proceedings strictly in accordance with the provisions contained under Sub-Section(3) of Section 143 of the N.I. Act, 1881.

10. Since the parties are represented through their counsels, thus, it would be deemed that they have full knowledge of orders passed by this Court. The orders passed by this Court shall be filed before the court below by 13th May, 2025.

11. Accordingly, both the applications are disposed of. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 piyush