SURINDER SINGH Vs. CHAJJU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short 'Cr. P.C.') has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 12.3.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, vide which the application filed by the petitioner for recalling of respondent-complainant, Chajju Singh for the cross examination, had been rejected.

(2.) Facts first. Succinctly from the warps and wefts of the record of the case, for deciding the issue involved, the following facts can be woven, from the point of view of this Court. Chajju Singh, respondent, is the original complainant. He filed his complaint dated 20.4.2006 (Annexure P-1) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Case Act, 1988 ( 'the Act' for short) and under Section 420 IPC ('IPC' for short). During the pendency of the complaint, the parties to the complaint entered into an out of Court settlement, by way of compromise dated 22.4.2007 (Annexure P-2). It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that when the respondent-complainant was cross examined as CW-1 in the Court on 16.3.2009, certain documents relating to the real controversy including the above said compromise, could not be put to the complainant during his cross examination, due to inadvertence on the part of the learned counsel who was previously representing the accused-petitioner.

(3.) Faced with the above said unwarranted situation, which came to be created because of the inadvertent mistake, noted above, on the part of the previous learned counsel, petitioner moved an application (Annexure P-5), invoking the powers of learned trial Magistrate for recalling Chajju Singh, complainantrespondent, for his further cross examination. The purpose was to enable the petitioner-accused to put the remaining documents including the above said compromise dated 22.4.2007 to Chajju Singh in his further cross examination with a view to search for the truth. Chajju Singh, complainant-respondent, filed his reply (Annexure P-6). After hearing the parties, the learned trial Magistrate dismissed the application of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 12.3.2010 (Annexure P-7).