KABUL SINGH Vs. KAMAL ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition under Sec. 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been preferred for setting aside the order dtd. 19/9/2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C./348 BNSS, 2023 in Criminal Complaint bearing No. NACT-1425 of 2019 titled 'Kamal Arora Vs. Crystal Wine through its Authorized Signatory and Ors.' was dismissed and further for quashing of the impugned order dtd. 19/7/2025 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby the revision was also dismissed in Criminal Revision No.133 of 2024 titled 'Crystal Wine vs. Kamal Arora'.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dismissing the application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. is based on assumptions and presumptions. The complaint was filed on 6/3/2019, and on 14/12/2022, the parties settled the dispute for Rs.9.00 lakh, with Rs.1.00 lakh was paid in Court and the balance was to be paid by cheques, which were dishonoured on 2/3/2023. The petitioner's counsel declined to cross-examine the complainant due to the compromise. On 10/5/2023, the complainant closed evidence stating that petitioner has already made a statement that he did not want to cross-examine the complainant. Being unaware of this fact, on 31/5/2023, the petitioner appeared with the balance amount but the complainant was absent on the day of payment, and later refused to accept the amount on 15/6/2023. The petitioner subsequently filed application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C./348 BNSS on 11/8/2023 for recalling the complainant for his cross-examination. That application was dismissed without considering the prejudice caused to the petitioner's defence or the earlier compromise-based waiver. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a criminal revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar which was also dismissed as not maintainable. Aggrieved of the dismissal, the present application has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued there was no deliberate intention to avoid cross-examination and urged that without it, the petitioner would suffer irreparable harm. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar dismissed the petitioner's application without properly appreciating the facts and law. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed.