HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21859 of 2025 Court No. - 76 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yashdeep Rastogi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dharamveer Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. This application has been filed by applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 27.5.2025 passed by Presiding Officer/Additional Court, Aligarh as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1262 of 2017, Rakesh Kumar Garg Vs. Jayesh Shah, under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Banna Devi, District Aligarh. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that by means of the impugned order the application of the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that previously the complainant was examined and the cross-examination was conducted, which was completed on 13.5.2022. Thereafter, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the case was fixed for defence evidence on 3.12.2022. However, no defence evidence was produced. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on the ground that the earlier counsel of the applicant has not made proper cross-examination, as a result of the same, the application for summoning the complainant has been made. 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that an Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravi Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dharam Veer Singh, G.A. Jayesh Shah .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) amount was transferred in the account of the complainant and the aforesaid fact has been denied by the complainant and as such cross- examination is required. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the earlier counsel has already cross-examined the complainant extensively and after the change of the counsel again the cross-examination application is made, which is not permissible under law. 7. A perusal of the record would go to show that the applicant has extensively cross-examined the complainant and thereafter, the opportunity to examine the prosecution witness was closed and even the defence witness was closed after recording the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. This Court on 9.4.2025 has expedited the trial court proceedings. The ground raised by the applicant for summoning the complainant is to the effect that proper cross-examination was not made by earlier counsel of the applicant and the amount was transferred by the applicant to the complainant. 8. In the present case, it is to be seen that once the cross-examination has been completed, opportunity for further cross-examination cannot be granted to the accused only on the ground that the earlier counsel has not properly cross-examined the complainant. The defence raised by the applicant is that the applicant has transferred the amount in the account of the complainant. Such a plea is a plea which the applicant has raised as a defence and it is for the applicant to prove the same by leading evidence. The cross-examination of the complainant has already been made as such it seems to be no ground for further summoning the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. From perusal of the impugned order, it seems that the applicant is trying to delay the trial court proceedings. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the present application sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 14, 2025 Bhaskar NA528 No. 21859 of 2025 2 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad