RAKESH R PANDEY vs RAVI AND SINGH COMMUNICATION

Judgment text excerpt

$~19 & 20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 14th May, 2026 + CRL.REV.P.(NI) 94/2026 & CRL.M.A. 9653-9654/2026 & CRL.M.A. 15264/2026 RAKESH R PANDEY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Umesh K. Burnwal and Mr. Waqar A. Khan, Advocates. versus RAVI AND SINGH COMMUNICATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rishi Raj Sharma and Mr. Subash Chand, Advocates. 20 + CRL.REV.P.(NI) 95/2026 & CRL.M.A. 9655-9656/2026 & CRL.M.A. 15265/2026 M/S TECHRINA TELECOM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Umesh K. Burnwal and Mr. Waqar A. Khan, Advocates. versus RAVI AND SINGH COMMUNICATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rishi Raj Sharma and Mr. Subash Chand, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Both the petitions being connected are taken up together. 2. The petitioner herein is defending two separate complaints filed by same respondent for commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’). Signature Not Verified Signed By:SONIA CRL.REV.P.(NI) 94/2026 & CRL.REV.P.(NI) 95/2026 1 THAPLIYAL Signing Date:16.05.2026 11:33:26 3. The cheque, in each of the complaint, is of Rs.4 lacs. 4. Both such complaints are, presently, at the stage of final arguments. 5. Petitioner-accused moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. praying for cross-examination of the complainant, claiming that due to some inadvertence and negligence on the part of previous counsel, the complainant could not be cross-examined and if he is not permitted to cross- examine the complainant, it would amount to denial of fair trial. 6. Fact, however, remains that keeping in mind the lax approach of the petitioner-accused, the learned Trial Court refused to allow such application of the petitioner while observing as under: - "6. In the present case,