Hippocampus Infotech (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2025 TaxPub(CL) 876 (Del-HC) IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT RAVINDER DUDEJA J. Hippocampus Infotech (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr. Crl. M.C. 7567/2024 17 April, 2025 Petitioner by: Praveen Singh, Ajay Sharma, Durgesh Nandini, Advs. Respondents by: Aman Usman, APP. Amitabh Narendra, Mridul Chakravarty, Chetan Garg and Mr. Indrayudh Chowdhury, Advocates for R-2. JUDGMENT *Ravinder Dudeja, J.* This petition has been filed under section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), passed by learned JMFC, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 29052/2016, titled Gemalto Digital Security Pvt. Ltd. v. Hippocampus Infotech P. Ltd. & Ors., filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), whereby, the application filed under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The brief facts are that Complainant/Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under section 138 NI Act with allegations that four cheques issued by petitioner No. 1 towards discharge of its liability were dishonoured with remarks account closed/transferred to vide bank return memo dated 20-5-2015. Petitioner did not make the payment despite demand notices dated 2-6-2015 and 20-6-2015. 3. Petitioners were summoned by the trial court vide order dated 20-8-2015. Notice under section 251 Cr. PC was served upon the petitioner on 28-5-2019. Petitioners filed an application under section 145 (2) NI Act, which was allowed and the case was listed for cross examination of respondent No. 2. Complainant evidence was closed vide order dated 24-5-2023. Thereafter, statement under section 313 of the Code was recorded on 20-9-2023. Defence evidence was closed vide order dated 16-1-2024. 4. Petitioners filed an application under section 311 of the Code with fresh Vakalatnama of the counsel. In the meanwhile, another application was filed by respondent No. 2 for change of name of respondent from Gemalto Digital Security Pvt. Ltd. to Thales Dis India Private Limited, which was allowed vide order dated 27-6-2024. 5. The application of the petitioners under section 311 Cr. PC for recall of respondent No. 2 for cross examination and for permission to lead defence evidence was dismissed vide impugned order dated 20-7-2024. It is this order, which has been challenged in this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the previous counsel for the petitioner belongs to Bangalore and is aged about 72 years and was suffering from Diabetic Retinopathy, due to which, he was advised sittings by the doctor for laser treatment and due to this reason his counsel did not appear on so many dates, as a result of which, the right of the petitioners to cross examine respondent No. 2 was closed. It is submitted that petitioners should not be made to suffer for the act of the counsel. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 is a vital witness and his non-examination shall be fatal to the case of the petitioners, and therefore, petitioners be granted an opportunity to cross examine respondent No. 2. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial court arguing that petitioners did not produce any medical record of the previous counsel. It has been submitted that the right of cross examination was closed on 24-5-2023, statement of petitioner No. 2/accused was recorded under section 313 Cr. PC on 20-9-2023. The present application was filed on 17-2-2024 i.e. even after the closure of right to lead defence evidence. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 has been adopting the delaying tactics since the beginning of the trial and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2025 TaxPub(CL) 876 (Del-HC)

IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT

RAVINDER DUDEJA J.

Hippocampus Infotech (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Crl. M.C. 7567/2024

17 April, 2025

Petitioner by: Praveen Singh, Ajay Sharma, Durgesh Nandini, Advs.

Respondents by: Aman Usman, APP. Amitabh Narendra, Mridul Chakravarty, Chetan Garg and Mr. Indrayudh Chowdhury, Advocates for R-2.

JUDGMENT

Ravinder Dudeja, J.

This petition has been filed under section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), passed by learned JMFC, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 29052/2016, titled Gemalto Digital Security Pvt. Ltd. v. Hippocampus Infotech P. Ltd. & Ors., filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), whereby, the application filed under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The brief facts are that Complainant/Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under section 138 NI Act with allegations that four cheques issued by petitioner No. 1 towards discharge of its liability were dishonoured with remarks account closed/transferred to vide bank return memo dated 20-5-2015. Petitioner did not make the payment despite demand notices dated 2-6-2015 and 20-6-2015.

3. Petitioners were summoned by the trial court vide order dated 20-8-2015. Notice under section 251 Cr. PC was served upon the petitioner on 28-5-2019. Petitioners filed an application under section 145 (2) NI Act, which was allowed and the case was listed for cross examination of respondent No. 2. Complainant evidence was closed vide order dated 24-5-2023. Thereafter, statement under section 313 of the Code was recorded on 20-9-2023. Defence evidence was closed vide order dated 16-1-2024.

4. Petitioners filed an application under section 311 of the Code with fresh Vakalatnama of the counsel. In the meanwhile, another application was filed by respondent No. 2 for change of name of respondent from Gemalto Digital Security Pvt. Ltd. to Thales Dis India Private Limited, which was allowed vide order dated 27-6-2024.

5. The application of the petitioners under section 311 Cr. PC for recall of respondent No. 2 for cross examination and for permission to lead defence evidence was dismissed vide impugned order dated 20-7-2024. It is this order, which has been challenged in this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the previous counsel for the petitioner belongs to Bangalore and is aged about 72 years and was suffering from Diabetic Retinopathy, due to which, he was advised sittings by the doctor for laser treatment and due to this reason his counsel did not appear on so many dates, as a result of which, the right of the petitioners to cross examine respondent No. 2 was closed. It is submitted that petitioners should not be made to suffer for the act of the counsel. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 is a vital witness and his non-examination shall be fatal to the case of the petitioners, and therefore, petitioners be granted an opportunity to cross examine respondent No. 2.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial court arguing that petitioners did not produce any medical record of the previous counsel. It has been submitted that the right of cross examination was closed on 24-5-2023, statement of petitioner No. 2/accused was recorded under section 313 Cr. PC on 20-9-2023. The present application was filed on 17-2-2024 i.e. even after the closure of right to lead defence evidence. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 has been adopting the delaying tactics since the beginning of the trial and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.