$~82 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010253772023 + CRL.M.C. 4567/2023 & CRL.M.A. 17485/2023 REKHA AWASTHI THROUGH SPA HOLDER RANDHIR KISHORE CHAWLA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Krishan Kumar, Mr. Shivam Bedi, Mr. Anubhav Kumar, Mr. Aman Bhati and Mr. Akhand Shresth Pandey, Advs. versus PUNEET BANTHIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Asim Naeem, Mr. Saurabh Soni, Mohd. Adil and Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 13.08.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) assailing the impugned order dated 02.06.2023 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02/NI Act (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi in Ct. Case No.17344/18 titled as ‘Rekha Awasthi v. Puneet Bantia.’ 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has remained pending before the learned Trial Court for around eight years, having been instituted in the year 2018. It is further submitted that, after the lapse of about five years, the learned Trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 311 of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:23:08 the Cr.P.C., permitting the respondent to cross-examine the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned MM has no powers to recall its own orders under the Cr.P.C. He further submits that whatever defence the respondent seeks to raise can be established by leading appropriate defence evidence. He further submits that the respondent keeps on misleading the Court by first submitting that he is ready for settlement and seeking adjournments on that pretext, whereas he has subsequently taken the stand that, owing to a change of counsel, he has now learnt that the complainant had not been cross-examined. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has placed reliance upon Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, 2004 AIR (SC) 4674, Ajaj Pal & Ors. v. State of UP & Anr., Crl. Misc. No. 1225 of 2013; AG v. Shiv Kumar Yadav & Anr., Crl. Appeal No. 1187-1188 of 2015 decided on 10.09.2015; Sushil Ansal v. State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. M.C. 2017 of 2021 decided on 10.09.2015 and Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI 2019 (14) SC 328. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the notice under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., framed by the learned Trial Court, the accused had clearly stated that he did not plead guilty and claims trial and had a defence to make. But in the order sheet dated 16.10.2019 it is wrongly mentioned that the accused has pleaded guilty to the notice under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., and does not claim trial. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that though in the admission denial of the documents under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C., the respondent admitted his signatures on the cheques in question, as well as the cheque return memo and receipt of the legal notice, he never pleaded guilty This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:23:08 and had claimed trial. Subsequently, owing to COVID-19 period and the subsequent adjournments, it was only thereafter that it came to the knowledge of the respondent that he had not been afforded an opportunity to cross- examine the complainant, as no application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act had been filed and the learned MM had not granted him an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, which is a valuable right. 8. He further submits that the accused be given only one opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and he will not seek further opportunity. 9. I have heard the parties and perused the record. 10. No doubt, the learned MM has no powers to recall its own orders, but in the present case, there are glaring inherent jurisdictional errors which are apparent on the face of record. Not only did the respondent not plead guilty to the accusations in the notice under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., but it also appears that the respondent was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant before the learned Trial Court. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that only one effective opportunity shall be granted to the respondent to complete the cross- examination of the petitioner in the learned Trial Court. It is further made clear that, if, for whatsoever reason, the respondent seeks an adjournment before the learned Trial Court, no further opportunity shall be granted, and the respondent’s right to cross-examine the complainant shall stand automatically closed. 12. Since the matter has remained pending before the learned Trial Court for the last eight years, even if learned counsel for the respondent is unable to complete the cross-examination on the said date, no further opportunity shall be granted, except for the aforesaid single date, as the respondent has himself This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:23:08 stated before this Court that he would complete the cross-examination in a single sitting and in a single opportunity. 13. Further, the respondent shall pay a cost of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner in the Trial Court at the time of the cross-examination. In default of payment of the said cost, he shall not be granted the opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner. 14. With these observations, the present petition stands disposed of. 15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 16. Parties to appear before the learned Trial Court on 20.08.2026. 17. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance and information. 18. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 13, 2026/b/sd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:23:08