Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Dahiya vs Virender Malik on 12 September, 2022
125-A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.39912 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.09.2022
Ajay Dahiya
......Petitioner
Versus
Virender Malik
......Respondent
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
*****
Present:- Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate
for the revisionist-petitioner.
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.(Oral)
Feeling dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the order dated
19.10.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Sonipat (for short 'the trial Court) in the complaint case bearing No.
COMA/1186/2016, dismissing the application moved by the petitioner-
accused (here-in-after to be referred as 'the accused') under Section 311
Cr.P.C as well as the judgment dated 02.03.2022 (Annexure P-4) handed
down by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat (for short 'the
revisional Court'), whereby the revision petition filed by the accused to lay
challenge to the order Annexure P-2 has also been dismissed, he (accused)
has preferred the instant petition for seeking the quashing of the afore-
mentioned order and the judgment as well.
1 of 3
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts culminating in the
filing of the present petition, are that the respondent-complainant (here-in-
after to be referred as 'the complainant') has filed the above-said complaint
case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881. During the course of the trial therein, the accused moved an
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for seeking permission to lead the
additional evidence by way of examining one Sumit son of Baljeet and
Suresh son of Sukhbir as the witnesses in his defence evidence. Vide order
Annexure P-2, the trial Court dismissed the afore-said application. The
accused challenged the above-said order by filing the revision petition and
the same has also been dismissed by the revisional Court vide the
impugned judgment Annexure P-4.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused in this
petition at the preliminary stage and have also perused the file carefully.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
testimonies of both the above-named proposed defence witnesses would be
necessary for the proper decision of the said complaint case but the trial
Court has wrongly dismissed the said application vide order Annexure P-2
and the revisional Court has also erroneously upheld the said order vide the
judgment Annexure P-4 and in these circumstances, the impugned order as
well as the judgment are not legally sustainable and hence, the same
deserve to be quashed.
5. However, I do not find the afore-raised contention to be
tenable at all because Section 311 Cr.P.C provides for summoning and
2 of 3
examining any witness if it appears to the Court concerned that the same
would be essential for the just decision of the case. However, a bare perusal
of application Annexure P-1 reveals that throughout therein, the accused
has not come forward with any fair, candid and plausible ground/ reason to
show as to how the testimonies of both the proposed defence witnesses
would be relevant and essential for the just and proper decision of the said
complaint case.
6. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the
present petition, being devoid of any merit, deserves dismissal. Resultantly,
the same stands dismissed accordingly.
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
September 12, 2022 JUDGE
pooja
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No
3 of 3
