HC Affirms Closure of Cross-Examination as Petitioner Didn’t File Plea u/s 145 of NI Act in a Cheque Dishonor Trial

Case Details: Cassius Infracon (P.) Ltd. v. Cassius Infracon (P.) Ltd. - [2024] 165 taxmann.com 267 (HC-Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Bharat P. Deshpande, J.
• Jayant Karn, Adv. for the Petitioner.
• Parag Rao & Ajay Menon, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, a memorandum of understanding was executed between the complainant and the petitioner/accused, in which the petitioner agreed to purchase a plot and issued some cheques accordingly.

The cheques were presented for encashment; however, they were returned unpaid. The complainant issued a legal notice demanding the amount mentioned in the cheques. However, no payment was forthcoming.

The complainant filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner and a process was issued against the petitioner. The Trial Court vide the impugned order observed that since no application was filed for cross-examination, an opportunity to cross-examine stood closed.

The petitioner filed an application praying to recall the order i.e. closer of cross-examination, however, the said application was rejected by the Trial Court.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that there was no ground to recall order of closing of cross examination as no purpose would be served since there was no application under section 145(2) by petitioner disclosing probable grounds for purpose of cross examination of complainant.

The High Court held that if the accused desires to examine the complainant and his witness, he must file an application to that effect, and accordingly, the Court is required to decide whether to recall witnesses or not. Therefore, no fault could be attributed to the impugned order, and an instant petition was to be dismissed.