SHASHI MAHAJAN Vs. SUDHA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, through the medium of this petition under Sec. 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'CrPC') seeks setting aside order dtd. 3/5/2023 passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu (for short 'CJM') in complaint No.29 filed under Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the NIA') titled Sudha Sharma v. Shashi Mahajan, whereby application for submitting a list of witnesses and depositing of their diet expenses as directed in terms of interim order dtd. 25/10/2019 was dismissed and a cost to the tune of Rs.4,000.00 was imposed. The petitioner also seeks quashment of order dtd. 12/7/2023 passed by the court of learned Principal Sessios Judge Jammu (for short 'Revisional Court') in Criminal Revision No. 75/2023 titled Shashi Mahajan V. Sudha Sharma whereby revision against the order dtd. 3/5/2023 passed by the learned CJM was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner has pleaded that a highly motivated and baseless complaint under Sec. 138 of the NIA was filed by the respondent against the petitioner before court of learned CJM, Jammu, with respect to Cheque No.062037 dtd. 14/11/2007 for an amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs issued by the petitioner which was dishonoured due to 'funds insufficient'; that the petitioner has been contesting the petition before the trial court, inter alia, on the ground that he had already paid the amount of Cheque to the respondent/complainant on 30/1/2008 at PNB Branch Shalamar, Jammu in presence of two persons Suraj Parkash and Balbir Singh, where the petitioner/accused deposited the said amount in her bank account and she has suppressed this fact in her complaint; that both the parties adduced their evidence in support of their respective claims and the learned Magistrate vide order dtd. 28/1/2011 closed the evidence of the petitioner/accused and posted the case for arguments, however, the petitioner feeling aggrieved challenged the order dtd. 28/1/2011 before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu who directed the learned Magistrate to provide two more opportunities to the petitioner/accused for leading the evidence, failing which the learned Magistrate was given liberty to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

(3.) Petitioner claimed to have filed two applications before the learned Magistrate, first moved to place on record a receipt dtd. 30/1/2008 and another was filed for re-examination and cross-examination of the respondent/complaint and in the meanwhile petitioner examined one witness on 25/3/2011.