Provision Of Recall U/S 311 CrPC Meant To Ensure Justice, Not Afford Repeated Opportunities To Indolent Litigant: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the provision to recall any person as a witness under Section 311 CrPC is meant to ensure justice, and is not a tool to delay proceedings in a criminal trial.

Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma thus rejected the petition moved by a complainant in a cheque dishonour case, challenging closure of her opportunity for further cross-examination.

The complainant-Petitioner had claimed that she came to know only on 03.02.2024 that her right to lead complainant's evidence had been closed by the Trial Court on 18.04.2023.

Blaming her previous counsel for the lapse, she moved an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking recall for further cross-examination.

The said application was however dismissed by the Trial Court citing her failure to appear and cooperate with the proceedings despite being granted ample opportunities.

The High Court observed that the impugned order reflects the Petitioner's conduct during trial inasmuch as while the Petitioner claimed she discovered the factum of closure of her rights only in February 2024, the matter had been pending at the stage of her evidence since 24.10.2016.

“The complainant had been neither diligent nor serious about leading her evidence. The fact that the matter remained pending for recording the complainant's evidence from 2016 till July 2023 itself indicates her non-seriousness with regard to her own case,” the Court said.

Petitioner alleged that she had given a friendly loan of ₹5 lakh to the Respondent but the cheques issued to her for repayment were dishonoured with the remarks “insufficient funds.” She had initiated criminal action and in pursuance of the same, had moved the Section 311 application.

The High Court however agreed with the trial court that Section 311 of CrPC cannot be invoked to delay proceedings on account of a party's own negligence or casual conduct. It observed,

“The provision is meant to ensure that no failure of justice occurs, not to afford repeated opportunities to an indolent litigant. Considering that the very object of the NI Act is the expeditious disposal of cheque dishonour cases, entertaining such pleas as the present one would only defeat that legislative intent.”

As such, it dismissed the plea.

Appearance: Mr. Mohammad Ziauddin, Adv. (through VC) for Petitioner; Mr. Kamlesh Jha, Advocate (through Video-conferencing) for Respondent

Case title: Archana Chaudhary v. Harsh Dawar

Case no.: CRL.M.C. 1412/2025

Click here to read order