MOHIT VIJ Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C") for setting aside of the impugned order dated 02.01.2018 (Annexure P-4) whereby evidence of the petitioner-accused was closed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad and setting aside the order dated 10.01.2018 (Annexure P-l) whereby an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C moved by the petitioner, was dismissed denying him an opportunity to lead evidence in defence in Complaint No.1736 of 2016 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) The respondent-complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act alleging that he had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 3,15,000/- to the petitioner in October 2015, which was to be returned in March 2016. In order to discharge the debt, the petitioner issued a cheque dated 10.03.2016 for the said amount. The cheque was drawn on Indian Bank, Sector 22, Faridabad, however, on presentation, it was returned by the banker, vide memo dated 31.03.2016 with the remarks "Payment Stopped by Drawer" which resulted into filing of the above said complaint by the respondent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after availing six opportunities, the complainant had closed his evidence on 03.10.2017, but the petitioner was given only four opportunities to lead his evidence in defence. By order dated 02.01.2018 (Annexure P-4), the trial Court closed his evidence and immediately thereafter, on 05.01.2018, (Annexure P-2), the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for additional evidence. He further submitted that cheque, in question had been stolen from him and upon coming to know of the same, he had given instructions to his banker on 27.08.2015 to stop the payment of the cheque. According to him, the respondent is a blackmailer who, in connivance with his erstwhile partner, who had stolen the cheque, had filed the complaint to extract the money from the petitioner. It is the submission of the petitioner that he wanted to produce evidence on both the said counts for which he had filed an application under Section 311 Cr. P.C but the same was declined by the trial Court without appreciating the factual position.