High Court Permits Cross-Examination Under Inherent Powers to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Subject to Exemplary Costs

Complaint Case SCNIA No. 680/2021 is pending before the JMFC, Indore, concerning dishonour of Cheque No. 313413 dated 30.12.2020 for Rs. 1 Crore, issued by petitioner No. 3 on behalf of petitioner No. 1/Company, arising from an inter-corporate deposit created out of earlier advances aggregating Rs. 3,08,76,000/-.

On 12.11.2025, the accused sought time to cross-examine the complainant (PW-1); the trial court rejected the deferment request and fixed 3:00 PM for cross-examination, with a caution that failure to proceed would entail forfeiture of the right.

At 3:00 PM, counsel again sought time, and the trial court forfeited the right to cross-examination, noting that nine adjournments had already been granted and that the previous adjournment was given with a note of caution.

The accused challenged the forfeiture order dated 04.12.2025 before the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in Criminal Revision No. 180/2026, which was dismissed on 26.03.2026.

The petitioners then preferred the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking quashment of both orders and one final time-bound opportunity to complete cross-examination.

1. Whether the High Court may invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 482 Cr.P.C.) notwithstanding the dismissal of a revision by the Sessions Court, or whether such exercise is barred as an impermissible second revision.

2. Whether the trial court's order forfeiting the accused's right to cross-examine PW-1, as upheld in revision, occasioned a failure of justice warranting interference in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

The Court applied Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, governing the inherent powers of the High Court (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.), and articulated the controlling principle that availing the remedy of revision before the Sessions Judge under Section 399 Cr.P.C. does not bar invocation of inherent powers; however, the High Court must not act as a second revisional court, and may interfere only where there is grave miscarriage of justice, abuse of process of court, non-compliance with statutory procedure, or failure of justice.

The respondent relied on Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137; Indian Bank Association v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 590 (paras 11–23); Deepti alias Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai, (1995) 5 SCC 751; and this Court's order in Sunil Dubey v. State of M.P., MCRC No. 7854/2024 decided on 26.02.2024, contending that a second revision is not maintainable and inherent power cannot be exercised where the Code expressly bars it.

The Court also took note of the Apex Court's directions mandating speedy disposal of cases under the N.I. Act, 1881.

Upon examining paragraphs 12 and 13 of the revisional court's order, the Court found that the complainant had been undergoing cross-examination by Advocate Shri Ritesh Kumar Sone on earlier dates, and the cross-examination remained incomplete only because court hours had expired; the trial court had observed that if one counsel was preoccupied, the other counsel who had conducted the earlier cross-examination could have completed it.

The Court therefore held that this was not a case of the accused deliberately avoiding cross-examination, but rather one of failure to make proper arrangements despite a caution issued in light of the case's prolonged pendency and the resulting non-compliance with the Supreme Court's directions for expeditious disposal of N.I. Act matters.

While expressly disapproving the petitioners' conduct — observing that the petitioners, being a company, ought to act in the same spirit with which they protect their other interests — the Court held that the petitioners could not be left remediless, as denial of cross-examination altogether would amount to a failure of justice falling within the limited scope of inherent jurisdiction.

The petitioners were directed to deposit costs of Rs. 50,000/- before the trial Court by 10.08.2026; upon such deposit, the trial Court shall fix a date and afford an opportunity to cross-examine PW-1, with a strict direction that no further adjournment shall be granted, and the deposited amount shall be payable to the respondent. It was further clarified that if the costs are not deposited within the stipulated period, the trial court's forfeiture order shall become effective immediately.