KAPIL BATRA PRODUCTION Vs. GURPREET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition, filed under Sec. 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for quashing of order dtd. 18/1/2025, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as learned trial Court') in Criminal Complaint bearing NACT No. 2049 of 2020, titled as Gurpreet Singh vs. Kapil Batra Productions and another, filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short N. I. Act'), whereby an application filed by the petitioner for summoning certain witnesses/material in his defence had been partly allowed, while declining the prayer made by him for summoning certain witnesses as well as documents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that respondent No. 1 has filed the aforesaid complaint against petitioner No. 1-firm and petitioner No. 2, being its proprietor, under Sec. 138 of the N. I. Act. The petitioner has been summoned and is facing trial as an accused in the aforementioned complaint. The case is at the stage of producing defence evidence. The petitioner filed an application (Annexure P-3) before the learned trial Court making prayer for summoning some record and witnesses as mentioned in detail in paragraph Nos. 3(a) to 3(h) of the application. After hearing arguments on this application, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order, thereby allowing the prayer made by the petitioner to summon witnesses mentioned at paragraph Nos. 3(a), (b) and (g) of the application but declined to summon the witnesses whose names have been mentioned in paragraph Nos. 3(c), (d), (e), (f) and (h) as well as the record sought to be summoned by such witnesses. It will be proper to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, which read as under:

(3.) It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law to the extent to which the learned trial Court had declined the prayer made by the petitioner for summoning certain witnesses as well as record since the petitioner has a right to adduce evidence in support of his defence. It is submitted that the proposed defence evidence is very much necessary not only for just decision of the case but also for proving the pleas as taken by the petitioner in his defence before the learned trial Court and by declining the same, a great prejudice has been caused to him. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition be allowed, the impugned order be set aside to the extent to which the prayer made by the petitioner had been declined and the learned trial Court be directed to summon the witnesses/record as mentioned in the application in toto.