A brief but telling hearing at the Delhi High Court on Tuesday ended with Justice Ravinder Dudeja refusing to interfere in a long-running cheque bounce case, signalling that courts will not entertain last-minute attempts to reopen evidence once trials are near the finish line. The petition, filed by Shelley Marwah, sought to undo a trial court order that had declined her request to summon records from another criminal case. The High Court was not convinced.
Background
The dispute traces back to a 2017 transaction. According to the complainant, a sum of ₹7 lakh was advanced to Shelley Marwah, against which a cheque was issued. When the cheque was presented, it bounced with the remark “funds insufficient.” Legal notice followed, payment did not, and a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed in Delhi’s Tis Hazari courts.
Read also:- Kerala High Court refuses bail to Palakkad man accused of bus harassment, says grave allegations block extraordinary relief under new
As the trial progressed and reached the stage of defence evidence, Marwah moved an application before the magistrate. She wanted the court to summon records of another complaint case involving a member of her family, claiming that the complainant’s attorney had, in that earlier matter, admitted receiving certain payments. The trial court rejected this plea in February 2025, prompting Marwah to approach the High Court under its inherent powers.
Court’s Observations
Justice Dudeja spent time revisiting the scope of Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code - a provision that allows courts to call or recall witnesses if it is essential for a fair decision. “This power is wide, but not unbridled,” the bench observed, stressing that it cannot be exercised casually or to fill gaps at the last moment.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Quashes Trial Court Stay in ₹2.33 Crore Hotel Dispute, Cites Judicial Consistency and Misuse of CPC Section 10
The judge noted that the trial court had already found inconsistencies between what was argued orally and what was stated in the application. More importantly, the petitioner had ample opportunity over the years to summon the relevant record, but did not do so. “Delay, when unexplained, becomes a crucial factor,” the bench remarked, adding that courts must remain alert to tactics that only slow down proceedings.
Referring to multiple Supreme Court rulings, the High Court underlined that recalling evidence is not a matter of routine. “Recall is not meant to derail a trial or cause inconvenience to the opposite party,” Justice Dudeja said, pointing out that the case had been pending since 2017 and was already at an advanced stage.
Read also:- Jammu & Kashmir High Court restores seniority claims of 1979 police recruits after decades-long battle over promotions and retrospective benefits
Decision
Finding no perversity or legal error in the magistrate’s reasoning, the Delhi High Court dismissed Shelley Marwah’s petition along with all pending applications, holding that the attempt to summon fresh material at this stage would amount to misuse of the process of law.
Case Title: Shelley Marwah vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Case Type: Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.M.C.)
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 1286/2025
Date of Judgment: 17 December 2025
