Rajnish Bhatnagar JUDGMENT
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"I. Quash/set-aside the impugned orders dated Orders Dated 08/12/2022 passed by the Court of Shri Yashwant Kumar Ld. Principal District & Session Judge, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Crl. Revision No. 227/2022 titled "Mrs. Kanta Goel Versus Mr. Atul Gupta" and order dated 20.07.2022 passed by the Ld. Trial Court Ms. Mansi Malik MM North West Rohini in CC No. 5377/2016 Ps South Rohini Titled "Mrs. Kanta Goel Versus Mr. Atul Gupta"
II. Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fir and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case"
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 04.07.2013, the complainant/petitioner had filed a complaint against the accused/respondent under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Ld. CMM, North-West, Rohini Court for returning of cheque bearing No. 023016 dated 25.03.2013 for a sum of Rs. 15,10,000/- for the reason 'Funds Insufficient' vide return memo dated 26.04.2013.
3. Vide impugned Order dated 20.07.2022, respondent/accused moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for recalling of CW-1 (petitioner herein) as CW -1 was not sufficiently cross examined with respect to her source of income and financial capacity to extend the loan in question and the Ld. Trial Court allowed the said application while observing that though an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C cannot be filed for filling the lacunas in the case of any of the parties, however, in the present case the cross examination of the complainant is essential for fair adjudication of the present case. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl. Revision No. 227/2022 before Ld. District & Session Judge North-West, Rohini Court, Delhi against the order dated 20.07.2022 and vide impugned Order dated 08.12.2022, the same was dismissed by Ld. Principal District & Session Judge, North-West, Rohini Courts with the observation that recalling of complainant for her recross-examination is essential for the just and proper adjudication this case.
4. The petitioner/ complainant has assailed the order dated 20.07.2022 passed by Ld. MM-03, Rohini Court in CC No. 5377/2016 and order dated 08.12.2022 passed by Ld. Principal District & Session Judge, Rohini Courts in Crl. Revision No. 227/2022.
5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Ld. Counsel for the respondent and perused the records of this case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that there is a delay of more than two years and ten months in filing of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for recalling of the complainant. He further submitted that recalling of the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C at the stage of defence evidence is not maintainable and clearly depicts the intention of the respondent to fill up the lacunas of the cross-examination of witness and the Ld. Revisional Court as well as Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C has been allowed without any specific questions or aspects being pointed out by the respondent/accused and the respondent/accused is being given the blank opportunity for unlimited cross-examination of the petitioner. He further subm........