Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhishek Tapadiya vs Vikalp Mundra Huf Through Karta Vikalp on 26 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8066
1 MCRC-8994-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
ON THE 26th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8994 of 2024
ABHISHEK TAPADIYA
Versus
VIKALP MUNDRA HUF THROUGH KARTA VIKALP
Appearance:
Mr. Paritosh Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Raunak Choukse, counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
This miscellaneous criminal case has been filed by the
petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr.PC seeking to quash the order
dated 03.02.2024 passed in Case No.UNCR/4558/2018 on the file of learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Indore (MP).
The facts of the case is that the petitioner/accused is an accused in
Case No.UNCR/4558/2018 on the file of learned JMFC, Indore. The
respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioner/accused
alleging that the cheque bearing No.027402 dated 07.04.2018 for an amount
of Rs.30,00,000/- has been dishonoured.
When the matter came up for trial, the complainant (PW/1) was
examined by the counsel for petitioner/accused twice and in the said case, a
petition was filed by the petitioner/accused for further cross-examination and
for recalling of PW/1 for further cross-examination and the same was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8066
2 MCRC-8994-2024
dismissed by the learned Magistrate dated 03.02.2024.
Against the said order, the present MCRC No.8994/2024 was filed.
These are the circumstances made by the petitioner/accused to file the
present application seeking to quash the order dated 03.02.2024 passed
in Case No.UNCR/4558/2018 by the JMFC Indore.
The contention of the petitioner/accused is that the application to recall
the complainant PW/1 is made to cross-examine on certain aspects which is
not cross-examined on the crucial aspects which are in favour of the
petitioner/accused to be brought on record by cross-examination. The
petitioner/accused has filed the application for recalling the PW/1 is made
before the courts below. Further submitted that the learned trial court without
proper appreciation of factual aspect pleaded by him in the petition and the
petitioner/accused has stated that circumstances compelled him to file the
application under Section 311 Cr.PC has refused to grant relief claimed by
the petitioner/accused as no opportunity is given to him to defend his case
and to bring some factual aspect which are in his favour. The present
application is made seeking to set-aside the order passed by the learned trial
court.
Counsel for the respondent has stated that PW/1 was cross-examined
twice on 08.09.2022 and 02.11.2022 and filed the application on 08.01.2024
for further cross-examination and the learned Magistrate dismissed the
application on 03.02.2024. Further submitted that whatever payments made
by the petitioner/accused is elicited facts through PW/1 which are prior to
the issuance of cheque, therefore the criminal petition is devoid of merits and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8066
3 MCRC-8994-2024
is liable to be dismissed.
Perused the record.
The order of the Magistrate dated 03.02.2024 has categorically stated
that on perusal of cross-examination had previously cross-examined the
complainant/PW/1 in detail regarding the grounds mentioned in the
application/documents on the basis of which a request has been made to call
the witness again and the petitioner/accused has earlier submitted an
application under Section 311 Cr.PC which was rejected by the learned
Magistrate and that there is no justification for re-summoning the
complainant/witness for further cross-examination and the application
submitted by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 Cr.PC has been
dismissed.
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation (2019) 14 SCC 328, Para 11 is relevant which reads
as under:-
"11. It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311
should be invoked by the Court only to meet the ends of justice.
The power is to exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it
should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The
court has wide power under this section to even recall witnesses
for re-examination or further examination, necessary in the
interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking
into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The
power under this provision shall not be exercised if the Court is of
the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the
process of law."
In light of the aforesaid judgment and on perusal of the order of
Magistrate, it is seen that in this case the witness has been cross-examined
twice, as stated above, the third application is filed for recalling of witness
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:8066
4 MCRC-8994-2024
PW/1 for further cross-examination. The learned Magistrate has categorically
stated that the facts elicited in the application are taken already cross-
examining the witness/complainant.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in my considered view,
the order impugned is not suffering from any factual or legal infirmities. I am
of the considered opinion that the impugned order needs no interference as it
has been passed taken into consideration all the factual and legal aspects of
the matter. The courts below has thoroughly appreciated all the factual and
legal aspects before passing the impugned order.
For the reasons mentioned in the preceding paras, the miscellaneous
criminal case fails and is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, M.Cr.C stands
dismissed.
(DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA)
JUDGE
Arun/-
