The Delhi High Court has drawn a firm line on delays in cheque bounce trials, holding that merely changing a lawyer is not enough to reopen evidence. Dismissing a plea for recalling the complainant for fresh cross-examination, the court said such requests, if allowed routinely, would turn criminal trials into “never-ending” exercises.
The ruling came in Sh. Vimal Ghai vs Sh. M. P. Sharma, decided on January 5, 2026, by Justice Ravinder Dudeja of the Delhi High Court.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with cheque dishonour cases. The complainant alleged that a cheque issued by the accused towards repayment of a liability was returned unpaid with the remark “payment stopped by drawer.” Despite a legal demand notice, the amount was not paid, leading to criminal proceedings.
Read also:- Housing Society Not an ‘Industry’: Bombay High Court Quashes Labour and Gratuity Claims of Former Manager
During trial, the complainant was cross-examined on three different dates in 2022 and 2023. The case later reached the stage of defence evidence.
In 2024, the accused moved an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking recall of the complainant for re-examination. The trial court rejected the request, and a criminal revision filed before the sessions court also failed. The accused then approached the High Court under its inherent powers.
What the Petitioner Argued
Counsel for the accused told the court that the loan amount had already been repaid in instalments and that signed receipts existed to prove this. According to him, the complainant had falsely denied his signatures on those receipts.
Read also:- Allahabad HC Flags Judicial Misuse, Directs Home Restoration and ₹1 Lakh Compensation
It was further argued that the earlier lawyer had failed to ask crucial questions during cross-examination.
“The true facts of the transaction could not come on record because of this lapse,” the petitioner’s counsel submitted, adding that the accused should not suffer for mistakes of his previous advocate.
Stand of the Complainant
The complainant opposed the plea, pointing out that cross-examination had already been conducted at length over three hearings. Allowing a recall after a gap of nearly two years, the respondent argued, would amount to filling gaps in the defence and delaying the case.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rejects NAK Engineering’s Impleadment Plea in Long-Running Mumbai Service Charges Suit
The respondent’s side maintained that Section 311 applications were being misused as a tactic to stall proceedings.
Court’s Observations
Justice Dudeja noted that courts indeed have wide powers under Section 311 CrPC to recall witnesses, but those powers are not meant to be exercised casually.
“The recall of a witness is not a matter of course,” the judge observed, stressing that such discretion must be used sparingly and only when essential for a just decision.
The court was particularly critical of the argument based on change of counsel.
“A newly engaged counsel steps into the shoes of the previous counsel,” the bench said, adding that a different legal strategy cannot become a ground to reopen evidence already concluded.
Read also:- Madhya Pradesh HC Backs Biological Father's Right, Orders School to Add His Name in Child’s Academic Records
The judge warned that if such pleas were accepted, every change of lawyer would trigger fresh cross-examination, leading to chaos and endless delay in criminal trials.
Balancing Fair Trial and Delay
While acknowledging that a fair trial is part of the right to life and liberty, the court underlined that fairness applies to all sides. Quoting earlier Supreme Court rulings, the bench said fairness must be seen from the perspective of the victim and society as well, not just the accused.
“In the name of fair trial, the system cannot be held to ransom,” the court remarked, noting that repeated recall of witnesses causes undue hardship and undermines the justice process.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores ₹3.73 Lakh Compensation in Driver Death Case, Overturns Telangana HC Order
Decision
After reviewing the trial court and sessions court orders, the High Court found no error in rejecting the recall application. The complainant had already been cross-examined extensively, and the accused had sufficient opportunity to put his defence on record.
Holding that the Section 311 application was an attempt to delay proceedings, the court refused to interfere. The petition was dismissed, bringing the matter back to the trial court to continue from the stage already reached.
Case Title:- Sh. Vimal Ghai vs Sh. M. P. Sharma
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 4782/2024
Date of Decision: 5 January 2026
