$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010431712026 + CRL.M.C. 6753/2026 & CRL.M.A. 28256/2026, CRL.M.A. 28257/2026 ASHU AGGARWAL ALIAS GAURAV AGGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Kumar Khatri, Adv. (through VC) versus INTEC CAPITAL LTD. .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 14.09.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. That the present petition is being preferred by the Petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking setting aside of the order dated 05.09.2026 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act)- 01, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CC No. 10402/2017, whereby the Ld. Trial Court declined the Petitioner’s request for recall of CW-1 for the purposes of further cross-examination. 3. Perusal of the record shows that, though no revision petition against the said order has been preferred by the petitioner before the Ld. Sessions Judge, however, in the interest of justice, the case is taken up. 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 15/09/2026 at 12:36:01 4. The counsel for the petitioner has been heard, who submits that the petitioner had already settled the matter with the respondent in the year 2016, wherein he paid Rs. 27 lakhs. The fact remains that the petition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has been pending before the Trial Court since 2017, and it seems that no such plea has been taken by the petitioner. 5. Perusal of the records shows that, on the aforesaid date, the petitioner sought an adjournment on the ground that his counsel was unwell. Subsequently, the matter was again taken up on the same day, when the accused also did not appear before the Ld. Trial Court, and the Ld. Trial Court closed the right of the petitioner to cross-examine CW-1, i.e., the complainant. 6. No doubt, the case is about 9 years old and has been pending before the board of the Ld. Trial Court, but the fact also remains that the petitioner should be given a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 05.09.2026 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is set aside, and the petitioner is given only one opportunity to cross-examine CW-1, i.e., on the date to be fixed by the Ld. Trial Court. 8. It is further made clear that, in case the petitioner fails to cross-examine the witness, no further opportunity shall be granted. Further, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- is imposed upon the petitioner, to be paid to the respondent before the Ld. Trial Court prior to the commencement of the cross-examination of CW-1. 9. It is made clear that, in case the cost is not paid, no opportunity to cross- examine the witness shall be granted by the Ld. Trial Court to the petitioner. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if 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 15/09/2026 at 12:36:01 any, also stand disposed of. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance 11. Copy of the order be given Dasti. 12. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2026/prg/rm 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 15/09/2026 at 12:36:01