LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-473

VARUN ENTERPRISES Vs. SUNITA PUNIA AND ANOTHER

Decided On September 21, 2015
Varun Enterprises Appellant
V/S
Sunita Punia And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. for setting aside the order dated 04.08.2015, passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh, vide which, application under Sec. 311 Crimial P.C. was dismissed.

(2.) Relevant facts of the case that present petitioner filed complaint under Sec. 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'The Act') as respondent No. 1 issued cheques of Rs. 54,400.00, Rs.58,200.00, Rs.36,000.00, Rs.58400.00 and Rs.79,500.00 but same remained unpaid. Statement of petitioner K.L. Rawal was recorded as CW-1. Because of mistake on the part of complainant's counsel legal notice was wrongly tagged and not enclosed the documents with the complaint. Later on, petitioner came to know about this mistake. Thereafter, application was moved for consolidation of both the two complaints pending in two different Courts of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Chandigarh Courts. Notice of the application was issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh but learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh without waiting for the outcome of the application dismissed the complaint of petitioner/complainant. As such, the application became infructuous. After pronouncement of judgment dated 17.03.2015, complainant visited his counsel and application under Sec. 311 Crimial P.C. was filed. Learned lower Courts failed to appreciate the settled principle of law that party cannot be debarred to place on record any document. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that as per settled proposition of law, the witness can be recalled for cross-examination and the same remedy cannot be denied merely on account of delay.

(3.) Petitioner filed revision petition against order dated 04.08.2015, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh but as revision petition was not maintainable against the interlocutory order, the said revision petition was withdrawn on 28.08.2015 and as such present petition before this Court.