RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. JITIN NEOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking quashing of the order dtd. 24/2/2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Abohar whereby the application filed by the petitioner (herein), under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. of 1973, for recalling of the complainant i.e. CW-1 Jitin Neol (respondent herein) for the purpose of further cross-examination has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record. The application of the petitioner for recalling the complainant (respondent herein) for effective cross-examination has erroneously been dismissed by the Court below, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. Leaned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside as the Court below has failed to appreciate the settled principles of law that certain aspects can only be elicited in cross-examination of the complainant. According to him, the petitioner-accused has categorically demonstrated that during the course of cross-examination on 30/8/2023 and 4/9/2023, the complainant has himself admitted that specific cash entries in his account could be subjected to verification at the instance of the accused and this fact stood corroborated through the testimonies of CW-3 and DW-6. According to learned counsel, despite such material coming on record, the Court below has erroneously concluded that the defence counsel has failed to explain why the complainant was not cross-examined on the aforesaid points and dismissed the application. Furthermore, the reason assigned by the Court below is perverse and contrary to the settled principles of natural justice as the opportunity to cross-examination is a valuable right enshrined under law. It is further contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic and devoid of merit and thus, deserves to be set-aside and prays for recall of the complainant to conduct proper and effective cross-examination in the interest of justice. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the instant petition by arguing that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. Learned counsel has iterated that the accused petitioner had full opportunity to cross-examine the complainant-respondent on 30/8/2023 and 4/9/2023 respectively but deliberately chose not to do so. According to learned counsel, the instant application is nothing but an attempt to fill up lacunae in the defense and to protract the proceedings. Furthermore, the recall of the complainant-respondent after completion of defence evidence would cause unnecessary harassment and delay which is contrary to the legislative intent of expeditious trial under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Learned counsel has further submitted that the power under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised judiciously, sparingly and only to prevent failure of justice not to afford repeated opportunities to a negligent party. Lastly, learned counsel has prayed that the Court below has rightly dismissed the application in hand for recalling the complainant by a well-reasoned order and hence the dismissal of the instant petition is entreated for.