Accused in a Section 138 NI Act case challenged the trial court's refusal to summon four defence witnesses. The High Court held the witnesses irrelevant to his defence and liability under Section 138 and declined to interfere with the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~73
SALIL TALWAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aakash Sachdeva & Ms. Nutan Sinha, Advs.
versus
SHAM CHARAN ARORA .....Respondent Through: Appearance not given.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R % 08.12.2025
“3. Concerned staff / clerk, from State Bank of India, DE-83 Tagore Garden Branch New Delhi, with original cheques No. 011096, 011097, 011098 & 335507 issued by M/s Talwar Jewellers from A/c No. 33565970426 and statement of account No. 33565970426 from 01.10.2014 to 31.12.2015 and
1 “the NI Act”
CRL.M.C. 8727/2025 Page 1 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/12/2025 at 12:29:09
01.10.2016 to 30.10.2016 and 01.01.2017 to 30.09.2017 duly certified by the bank as per The Bankers Book Evidence Act ,1891.
4. Concerned staff / clerk from Axis bank, Rajouri Garden Branch New Delhi - 110027, with copy of cheques No.232339 and 232345 issued by M/s Talwar Jewellers from A/c No. 066010200017231 and statement of account No. 066010200017231 from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015 and 01.01.2017 to 30.09.2017 duly certified by the bank as per The Bankers Book Evidence Act ,1891.
6. Concerned staff / clerk from the court of Sh. Shashank Nandan Bhatt, Ld. JMFC, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with complete Case file of Case No. Ct. Cases - 5131/2018, titled as Siddharth Talwar Vs. Salil Talwar.”
“Submissions heard on behalf of both parties on list of witnesses filed.
The primary defence of the accused no. 4 is that he was not incharge of day to day affairs of the accused partnership firm at the time of issuance of dishonour of the cheque in question and that the cheque has been misused by the complainant against him and the partnership firm in connivance with accused no. 3.
Witness at Sr. no. 2 i.e. Vinod Choudhary is allowed as he is required to prove that the accused no. 4 was a sleeping partner and is essential to prove the defence of accused no. 4.
Similarly witnesses mentioned at Sr. no. 5 and 7 are also allowed as they appear essential to prove the defence of the accused no. 4.
Witness mentioned at Sr. no. 3 and 4 are required to prove that accused no. 3 has withdrawn amount from the account of partnership firm through self cheques. This court if of the opinion that the said witnesses are not relevant to the prove the defence of the accused no. 4 and therefore disallowed.
Similarly, witness at Sr. no. 6 is required to prove that accused no. 3 has opened a factory, this witness is again is not relevant to the prove the defence of the accused no. 4 and
CRL.M.C. 8727/2025 Page 2 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/12/2025 at 12:29:09
therefore disallowed.
Accused no. 4 seeks permission to examine the witness at Sr. no. 8 to disprove the ITR’s filed by the complainant as the balance sheet attached in Ex.CW1/X2 are alleged to be false and fabricated.
It is submitted on behalf of the complainant that the balance sheet filed alongwith Ex.CW1/X2 for the assessment year 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016- 17 was not filed alongwith the ITR.
Considering the submissions made witness at Sr. no. 8 is disallowed as the complainant himself has admitted that he has not filed the balance sheet with the ITR. Therefore, the witness from ITR cannot be expected to prove the genuineness of the balance sheet. Therefore, examination of witness at Sr. no. 8 is disallowed as being irrelevant.
Accordingly, accused no. 4 is granted permission to examine himself and witnesses at Sr. no. 2, 5 and 7 as defence witnesses. (P, Singh)
It is submitted on behalf of the complainant that he wishes to cross examine the accused no. 3 and 4 only after the examination in chief of both accused no. 3 and 4 is recorded. JMFC (N.I. Act)-04/West/Delhi 07.08.2025
Permission granted.
Accused no. 3 and 4 are directed to appear physically on the NDOH. Put up for examination in chief of accused no. 3 and 4/FP on 08.09.2025.”
CRL.M.C. 8727/2025 Page 3 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/12/2025 at 12:29:09
Petitioner’s liability under Section 138 of the NI Act in light of the defence taken at the stage of notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
DECEMBER 8, 2025/ ng
CRL.M.C. 8727/2025 Page 4 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/12/2025 at 12:29:09
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly declined to summon proposed defence witnesses nos. 3, 4, 6 and 8 in a Section 138 NI Act complaint.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Salil Talwar
Sham Charan Arora
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
