[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mithlesh Yadav vs Parmal Singh Parmar on 22 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2909
1 MCRC-54575-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 22nd OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54575 of 2023
MITHLESH YADAV
Versus
PARMAL SINGH PARMAR
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajeev Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528
of BNSS against the order dated 31.10.2023, whereby the XIV Additional
Sessions Judge, Gwalior in CRR No. 358/2023, while rejecting the revision
petition of the petitioner, has confirmed the order dated 26.09.2023 passed
by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Case No.
(SCNIA)1302/2021 and an application of the petitioner has been rejected.
As per prosecution story, the petitioner is accused of an offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is alleged that the petitioner
issued a cheque for Rs. 10,00,000/- to the complainant, and upon dishonor,
the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act. During the
trial, the petitioner filed an application seeking permission to raise objections
upon the additional chief examination of the complainant in light of the
judgment of Indian Bank Association & Ors. vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta
(2014) 5 SCC 590, but the Trial Court vide order dated 26.09.2023 dismissed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2909
2 MCRC-54575-2023
the application observing that the statement did not constitute an additional
chief examination, against which, the petitioner preferred a revision petition,
which was also dismissed by the Sessions Court vide order dated 31.10.2023.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition, contending that
the trial court acted arbitrarily, ignored settled law, and violated the
provisions of Section 145(2) of the N.I. Act regarding affidavit evidence and
cross-examination.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders
are illegal and amount to an abuse of the procedure of law, as the courts
below ignored the basic facts apparent from the record. The complainant has
been allowed to give additional chief examination contrary to the provisions
of Section 145(2) N.I. Act and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association (Supra) . It is submitted that the
trial court's observation that the statement is not additional chief examination
is arbitrary and contrary to material on record. It is further submitted that
allowing additional chief examination of the complainant amounts to abuse
of procedure and violates his statutory right to cross-examine evidence
submitted through affidavit. Hence, on the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner
prays for quashing of the orders of the trial court and Sessions Court and
seeking permission to object to the additional chief examination.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the
trial court has acted strictly in accordance with law in dismissing the
petitioner's application. The additional chief examination sought by the
petitioner is not warranted as per the provisions of the N.I. Act and settled
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2909
3 MCRC-54575-2023
judicial precedents. The impugned orders do not show any illegality or
arbitrariness, and the statutory procedure under Section 145(2) has been
complied with. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any material
irregularity or miscarriage of justice that warrants interference under Sections
482 of Cr.P.C.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Upon perusal of the record and hearing learned counsel for the
petitioner, this Court finds that the trial court has passed the impugned order
after considering the nature of the statement and relevant provisions of
Section 145(2) of the N.I. Act. The petitioner has not been able to
demonstrate any legal or factual error in the orders of the trial court or
Sessions Court that would justify interference under Sections 482 or 483
Cr.P.C. The law regarding additional chief examination and cross-
examination in the context of affidavit evidence under the N.I. Act is settled.
No illegality or miscarriage of justice is made out on the record. The
application filed by the petitioner essentially seeks review of the trial court's
discretion, which cannot be interfered with in the absence of any patent
illegality.
In view of the above, the Court finds no merit in the petition. The
application under Sections 482 and 483 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
