RAJESH CHARAYA @ RAJESH KUMAR Vs. GAURAV SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of common order, this Court intends to dispose of both the petitions together, as both are arising out of the same impugned order i.e. 4/11/2024 (Annexure P-5).

(2.) The jurisdiction of this court under Sec. 528 BNSS, 2023 has been invoked seeking quashing of the impugned order dtd. 4/11/2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, vide which an under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner-accused for recalling the complainant-respondent for re-cross examination, has been dismissed. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details the fact leading to filing of present petition is that the complaint under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was preferred by the complainant-respondent on 20/5/2022 alleging that an amount of Rs.11,00,000.00, as earnest money, has been paid to the accused and in discharge of his legal liability the petitioner-accused issued cheque in question, which got dishonoured and notice of accusation was served upon to the petitioner wherein the petitioner denied any amount due towards the complainant. The petitioner-accused moved an application under Sec. 311 of the code for recalling the respondent-complainant for re-examination, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 4/11/2024 (Annexure P-5).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC), Abohar, has wrongly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-accused under Sec. 311 of the Code through an order dtd. 4/11/2024 (Annexure P-5) by observing that it is an attempt to fill up the lacunae. Further contention is that by way of present application, he intend to put few relevant questions, which were left earlier to be asked inadvertently but are very necessary for the just decision of the present complaint. However on 4/6/2024, he withdrew the application on account of some technical ground in order to file afresh with better particulars. Moreover, there are major contradictions as to the date of advancement of alleged loan by the respondent-complainant to the petitioner-accused.