SUKHPAL KAUR Vs. ARUN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order dated 21.11.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by ld. SDJM, Samrala vide which application filed by the petitioner for recalling the complainant for his cross-examination has been dismissed, in a complaint case No. 4/2/15.1.14, captioned as "Arun Kumar Vs. Sukhpal Kaur" under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, " Act" only).

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the instant petition are that respondent-complainant lodged a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act in the Court of Ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala against the petitioner for alleged dishonour of cheque issued by her. Vide order dated 15.01.2014, Ld. SDJM, Samrala summoned the petitioner to face trial. In compliance of summons issued to the petitioner, she appeared and joined the proceedings. The case was listed for the evidence of the complainant for April 02, 2014. Since, on that date, no witness was produced or examined, it was adjourned to April 29, 2014 and subsequent thereto it was adjourned to Aug. 27, 2014 but on that date also no witness was examined but the case was listed for defence evidence to be adduced by the petitioner on Sept. 17, 2014. On that date i.e. September 17, 2014, an application was moved for permission to recall the complainant for the purposes of cross-examination but that application was dismissed by the ld. trial court vide impugned order dated November 21, 2014, which necessitated the filing of instant petition.

(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner intends to cross-examine the complainant to prove her case regarding the factum of non-legal liability/debt and non-advancement of loan as well as who filled the cheques and that there was no agreement for the repayment of any such amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that earlier the application was not moved as the case was fixed for the complainant evidence and abruptly, it was listed for the defence evidence when the application was moved. Subsequent to filing of the instant petition, even the FIR has also been registered against the complainant-respondent at police Station Samrala, District Khanna under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, in which, it has been clearly unfolded that the signatures on the blank cheques have been obtained from the petitioner as a guarantee to repay some of the loan amount borrowed by the husband of the petitioner. Thus, recalling of the complainant is necessary to adjudicate the matter effectively and judiciously.