[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Gaurav Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 January, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2026:JHHC:1620]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3382 of 2025
------
Gaurav Kumar Singh, aged about 39 years, Son of Narwadeswar
Singh, Resident of Village- Gongo, P.O.- Udaypura, P.S.-
Pipratand, Dist.- Palamau.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Son of Ram Chandra Pandey,
Resident of Parsuram Nagar, Panki Road, Baratola, P.O. &
P.S.- Medninagar, Dist.- Palamau.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Nanda Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : None
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party
No.2-complainant yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party
No.2-complainant in spite of repeated calls.
3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with
the prayer to quash the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with
Complaint Case No. 1354 of 2020 involving the offence punishable
[2026:JHHC:1620]
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act whereby and
where under the learned court below allowed the petition filed by the
complainant and recalled the earlier order dated 16.03.2024 by which
the evidence of the complainant had been closed.
4. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is an accused of
Complaint Case No. 1354 of 2020 involving the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The evidence of
the complainant was closed without examination of the witnesses vide
order dated 16.03.2024, hence, the complainant filed a petition dated
18.05.2024 for recalling the said order and to allow the complainant to
examine his witnesses. The said petition was taken up on 09.05.2025
by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in
Complaint Case No. 1354 of 2020 and the said prayer was allow subject
to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- by the complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the
evidence of the prosecution is closed, the same could not be recorded
except under exceptional circumstances. Learned counsel for the
petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy reported in
(2011) 11 SCC 275 and submits that therein, in the facts of that case
which involved the original civil suit, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has held that in the absence of any provision providing for
reopening of evidence or recall of any witness for further examination
or cross-examination, for purposes other than securing clarification
[2026:JHHC:1620]
required by the court, the inherent power under Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure subject to its limitations, can be invoked in
appropriate cases to reopen the evidence and/or recall witnesses for
further examination. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed
for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand
vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition and submits that the submissions made by the
petitioner is misconceived. This being a criminal proceeding, the
procedural law applicable is the Code of Criminal Procedure and not
the Code of Civil Procedure. It is next submitted that there is specific
procedure in the Code of Criminal Procedure vesting power upon the
trial court for permitting examination of the witnesses, if their evidence
is required for the just decisions of the case; even by reopening the
evidence of the complainant. It is then submitted that the undisputed
fact remains that the witnesses who have been permitted to be
examined by the learned Judicial Magistrate, are the witnesses whose
evidence is required for the just decision of the case. It is lastly
submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in allowing the petition.
Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being
without any merit, be dismissed.
7. Having heard the rival submission made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court
[2026:JHHC:1620]
finds that the undisputed fact remains that the evidence of the
witnesses sought to be examined by the complainant, is required for
the just decision of the case.
8. Under such circumstances, the examination of such witnesses
having been allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Palamau at Daltonganj by recalling its earlier order by which it closed
the evidence of the prosecution, this Court is of the considered view
that this Court do not find any justifiable reason to quash the order
dated 09.05.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Complaint Case No. 1354 of
2020, in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being
without any merit, is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 21th of January, 2026
AFR/ Saroj
Uploaded on 22/01/2026
