Delhi High Court: Misuse of Sec 391 Cr.P.C. Amounts to Miscarriage of Justice

In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court emphasized that Section 391 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) cannot be employed to delay proceedings or inconvenience the opposing party, as such actions constitute a miscarriage of justice and an abuse of the legal process. The court’s opinion was expressed in the case of Rajesh Marwah v State & Anr., presided over by Hon’ble Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

Case Background: The case revolved around a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) by the complainant against the accused, who had issued a post-dated cheque that was subsequently dishonored due to insufficient funds. The accused sought to recall the complainant for cross-examination, but the application was dismissed by the appellate court.

Petitioner’s Contentions: The petitioner, representing himself, argued that the appellate court erred in its decision and contended that the purpose of recalling the complainant was not to address any procedural lacuna but to corroborate the defense with documentary evidence.

Court’s Observations and Decision: The Delhi High Court noted a significant delay of over three years and five months in the petitioner’s application to cross-examine the complainant. Moreover, it was observed that the complainant had already undergone extensive cross-examination, leaving no grounds for further examination.

The court reiterated that the misuse of Section 391 Cr.P.C. to prolong proceedings or inconvenience the opposing party constitutes a miscarriage of justice and an abuse of the legal process. In light of these observations, the court dismissed the petitioner’s plea.

Conclusion: The judgment underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring the expeditious and fair resolution of legal disputes. It serves as a reminder that procedural mechanisms should not be exploited to unduly delay proceedings or cause inconvenience to the parties involved. Instead, the legal process should be utilized judiciously to uphold justice and maintain the integrity of the judicial system.

[Case Title: Rajesh Marwah v State & Anr. Coram: Hon’ble Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Case No.: CRL.M.C. 5428/2023 & CRL.M.A. 20570/2023 Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Mr. Atul Sahi Advocate for the Respondents: Advs. Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar and Mr. Raghav Sharma]

 If you like this law news, share it with a friend!