K.S.MALIK Vs MOHD. FAROOQ & ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: August 07, 2026

Pronounced on: August 20, 2026

CNR No. DLHC010170182026

CRL.M.C. 3065/2026, CRL.M.A. 12476/2026, CRL.M.A.

12477/2026, CRL.M.A. 12478/2026

K.S. MALIK.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sharwan Tiwari and Mr. Gupesh

Tripathi, Mr. Hem and Ms. Aarti

Minj, Advs.

Versus

MOHD. FAROOQ & ANR.

Through: None

.....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

As per facts involved, the respondent no.1 had filed a complaint

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the

petitioner before the learned JMFC, NI Act (01), North District, Rohini

Courts . Subsequently, through an application under Section 311 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Trial Court,

respondent no.1 sought permission to examine two new witnesses as also

documents that came to be allowed vide order dated 24.02.2025. Being

aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition thereagainst before the

1881^{1}

1973^{3}

Hereinafter referred as “NI Act”

Hereinafter referred as “Trial Court”

3Hereinafter referred as “CrPC”

learned Additional Sessions Judge, North, Rohini Courts , which, came to

be dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.10.2025. Resultantly, the order

dated 24.02.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court has been affirmed.

Now, by virtue of the present petition under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 / Section 482 of the CrPC, the

petitioner seeks setting aside the order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the

learned ASJ, whereby the learned ASJ dismissed the revision petition filed

by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by learned

Trial Court allowing the respondent no.1’s application under Sections 348/

311 BNSS/ CrPC.

Considering the petitioner herein has filed the present petition under

Section 528 of the BNSS/ Section 482 of the CrPC against an order passed

by a Revisional Court/ learned ASJ under Section 397 CrPC in the nature

of an appeal, the same raises an issue of maintainability, especially, [i] as

there is no express provision for the same anywhere in the Statutes, be it

the CrPC and/ or the existing BNSS; and [ii] in the wake of provisions

contained in Section 397(3) CrPC/ Section 438(3) BNSS and Section

399(3) CrPC/ Section 440(3) BNSS expressly barring a second revision by

the same party; and [iii] since the learned ASJ has already exercised its

revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC/ Section 438 BNSS.

This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner, as also gone

through the documents/ materials on record.

As borne out from the materials on record, it is primarily the case of

the petitioner that the learned ASJ erred by not considering that there were

Hereinafter referred as “ASJ”

5Hereinafter referred as “BNSS” no foundational facts in the complaint made by the respondent no.1 so as to

call for new witnesses and establish a different case altogether that too in a

summary proceeding under the NI Act.

In fact, it is in furtherance of the above that the learned counsel for

the petitioner has addressed his arguments.

Since it entails therefrom that the present petition is nothing but a

challenge in the form of an appeal to the impugned order passed by the

Revisional Court, this Court is to proceed accordingly.

Such a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS/ Section 482 of the

CrPC is per se not maintainable in the eyes of law, particularly, in view of

clear demarcations introduced by the Legislature in the distinct remedy of

revision under Section 397 from that of an appeal under Section 372, and

from that of the “inherent powers” of the High Court under Section 482 in

the CrPC, while incorporating it in the year 1973. In fact, the same has also

been consciously retained in similar provisions of the BNSS by substituting

them with the corresponding provisions of Sections 438, 413 and 528 of the

BNSS respectively. This was purely intended to prevent repetitive and

frivolous litigation(s).

Moreover, the “inherent powers” of this Court as preserved under

Section 528 of the BNSS/ Section 482 of the CrPC cannot also be invoked

by the petitioner herein as a matter of right, much less, to subvert the

existing salient provisions of the Statute i.e. the CrPC/ now existing BNSS.

A simple challenge by way of a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS/

Section 482 of the CrPC is itself not sufficient. The petitioner cannot be

allowed to seek benefit thereof in the form of an appeal thereunder to

somehow circumvent the bar imposed under Section(s) 372, 397, 397(3),

399(3) and 482 of the CrPC/ Section(s) 413, 438, 438(3), 440(3) and 528 of

the BNSS, respectively.

Exercise under Section 528 of the BNSS/ Section 482 of the CrPC,

and that too against an order passed by a Revisional Court, can only be

possible, if there is an abuse of process of law and/ or it is necessary for

securing the ends of justice and/ or if there has been a miscarriage of justice

and/ or if there is a non-compliance of any mandatory provision(s) of law

and/ or if there is ignorance of material(s) on record and/ or if there is

something of a like nature, by the Court below, while exercising its

revisional jurisdiction.

In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amar Nath v. State of

Haryana, while dealing with the express bar qua interlocutory order under

Section 397(2) CrPC, has expressed that “… …It is well settled that the

inherent powers of the Court can ordinarily be exercised when there is no

express provision on the subject-matter. Where there is an express

provision, barring a particular remedy, the Court cannot resort to the

exercise of inherent powers.”.

Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of

Maharashtra has expressly laid down the following principles in relation

to exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court as under:-

“(1) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a

specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance

of the aggrieved party;

(1977) 4 SCC 137

(1977) 4 SCC 551

(2) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent

abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends

of justice;

(3) That it should not be exercised as against the express

bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

As apparent therefrom, though inherent jurisdiction under Section

528 of the BNSS/ Section 482 of the CrPC can be invoked, however, not as

a blanket rule under all circumstances since the scope thereof has not been

expanded and a party like the petitioner herein has to satisfy this Court

whether or not the case set out by him falls within the narrow category

therein.

Moving ahead to the facts herein, this Court finds that there are no

submissions made and/ or grounds raised and/ or submissions addressed by

learned counsel for the petitioner in support thereof, which fall within the

ambit of this Court to exercise its “inherent powers” under Section 528 of

the BNSS/ Section 482 of the CrPC, and that too against a judgment passed

by the learned ASJ, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under

Section 397 CrPC.

In any event, on merits also, this Court finds that the learned ASJ

vide the impugned order dated 29.10.2025, has duly negated/ dealt with all

the contentions sought to be raised by the petitioner herein by a wellreasoned impugned order, relevant extracts whereof are reproduced as

under:-

“6. The matter is admittedly at the stage of complainant’s

evidence and through the proposed CW Firoz, the

complainant wants to prove that the cheques in question were

issued in his presence. In the considered opinion of this

Court, the complainant is within his right to do so. The effect

of non-mentioning of the above said fact in the complaint or

in the affidavit in evidence of the complainant can be seen

only during the trial after evidence is led by CW Firoz and

his cross examination is done on behalf of the

revisionist/accused. Similarly, the plea that CW Firoz was

not maintaining books of accounts of the complainant is also

a disputed question of fact which can be considered only

after evidence is led by CW Firoz and his cross examination

is done.

7. Through the witness from Axis Bank, the complainant

seeks to prove that he was having regular business dealings/

transactions with the revisionist/accused. In the considered

opinion of this Court, the complainant is within his right to

do so as well.”

Even otherwise, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay

8 9

Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v. CBI,

it is trite that the power vested under Section 311 CrPC is a vast one that

can be used at any stage of a trial, including summoning a witness who has

not been formally summoned. The same can be exercised, if the Court,

based on its discretion, in light the facts and circumstances involved, forms

an opinion that the examination of such a witness is indeed essential for a

just decision of a case.

Thus, the petitioner cannot be allowed to circumvent the existing

position of law, especially, in view of the law as enunciated by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Amar Nath (supra) and Madhu Limaye (supra). In the

wake of above, there is nothing which calls for any interference of this

(2011) 8 SCC 136

(2019) 14 SCC 328

Court in this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS/ Section 482 of the

CrPC. Moreover, the present petition cannot be entertained since there is no

provision for a second revision under the BNSS/ CrPC.

Accordingly, the present petition alongwith the pending applications,

being not maintainable, is dismissed in limine.

AUGUST 20, 2026/Ab/Aks

SAURABH BANERJEE, J.