Delhi High Court Warns Against 'Chaos' If Witnesses Are Recalled Every Time Counsel Changes

The Delhi High Court has refused to recall a complainant for further cross-examination in a cheque bounce case, observing that permitting recall every time a party changes its lawyer would lead to “chaos” and cause unnecessary delay in trials.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed,

“The newly engaged counsel steps into the shoes of previous counsel and cannot agitate that more questions were required to be put to the witnesses. Merely because the new counsel has been engaged, same would not confer any right to the petitioner to seek recall of complainant/respondent for cross-examination, failing which, there would be chaos and every new counsel engaged by the concerned party would file an application for recall of witnesses on that ground which would result in unnecessary delay in disposal of the case.”

The Court was dealing with a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC challenging orders of the trial court and the revision court, which had declined the Petitioner-accused's plea to recall the complainant under Section 311 CrPC.

The case arose from a complaint filed under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging dishonour of a cheque issued by the Petitioner towards discharge of liability.

After the complainant was cross-examined and the matter reached the stage of defence evidence, the Petitioner moved an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking recall of the complainant on the ground that a new counsel had been engaged and further questions were required to be put.

The trial court and revision court rejected the plea, prompting the Petitioner to move the High Court.

It was his case that the previous counsel did not properly cross-examine the complainant inasmuch as the material questions in respect of liability and purported repayment were not asked.

Rejecting this contention, the High Court held that Petitioner had ample opportunities to put forth the necessary questions as is being sought now.

“There was nothing which prevented him from putting those questions. Merely because of the change of counsel and based upon his opinion that such questions were relevant, witnesses/complainant cannot be recalled for purpose of cross-examination,” it said and dismissed the plea.

Appearance: Mr. Satish Kumar, Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Shubham Gupta, Adv. for Respondent

Case title: Sh. Vimal Ghai v. Sh. M. P. Sharma

Case no.: CRL.M.C. 4782/2024

Click here to read order