RAKESH KUMAR GARG Vs. SURINDER PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C) for quashing of orders dated 16.12.2019 (Annexure P-11) and 15.01.2020 (Annexure P-12) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala in complaint case No. COMA-1350-2017 titled as Surinder Pal Singh versus Rakesh Kumar Garg filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I. Act').

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to filing of the present petition are that Surinder Pal Singh filed above said complaint against the petitioner accused on the averments that accused took friendly loan of Rs.3,85,000/- and executed an affidavit in this regard and in discharge of subsisting liability the accused issued cheque No. 016786 dated 31.01.2017 for amount of Rs.3,85,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Dhuri Branch near BDO Office, Dhuri Pind Road, Dhuri, District Sangrur which was on presentation dishonoured with remarks "Funds Insufficient" and the accused failed to pay the amount of the cheque despite service of legal notice dated 08.03.2017. After recording of preliminary evidence, the accused was summoned to face trial and case was taken up for recording evidence of the complainant. After examination of the complainant affidavit of Krishan Gopal Jain was tendered as CW-2. The accused filed an application objecting to examination of CW-2 Krishan Gopal Jain on the ground that he was not cited in the list of witnesses. The application was opposed by the complainant. However the same was allowed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class vide order dated 18.09.2019 and examination-in-chief of CW2 Krishan Gopal Jain was discarded. Subsequently the complainant filed application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for allowing the complainant to lead additional evidence and application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for permission to lead secondary evidence of the agreement. The applications were opposed by the accused. However, the applications were allowed vide order dated 16.12.2019 (Annexure P-11) whereby the complainant was allowed to produce the secondary evidence of the agreement and to examine Krishan Gopal Jain, Renu Jain and stamp vendor.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved the petitioner accused has filed the present petition.