Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mejar Singh @ Major Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 22 September, 2023
CRM-M-48190-2023 -1-
2023:PHHC:126185
123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-48190-2023
Decided on : 22.09.2023
Mejar Singh @ Major Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and ors. ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present : Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral)
1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
quashing of the order dated 28.08.2023 in complaint No.NIA 89 dated
17.09.2016 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') passed by learned SDJM, Samrala, vide which
his application under Section 311 Cr.PC for summoning three witnesses
was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he had
filed an application under Section 311 Cr.PC for summoning the following
three witnesses on his behalf:
i) Ahlamad of the Court of Mrs. Megha Dhaliwal, Addl.
Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Samrala along with case file
titled as "Major Singh vs. Jagdev Singh" Civil Suit
No.135/19 pending for 06.09.2023.
ii) Concerned clerk of State Bank of India Branch
SONIA BURA
2023.09.26 13:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:126185
Khanna along with statement of account
No. 65164591796 w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016.
iii) Concerned clerk of Bank of India Branch Khanna
along with statement of account
No.652310110002823 w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to
31.12.2016.
However, the Court below had wrongly observed that
allowing the application would result in the wastage of precious time of
the Court. Learned counsel has submitted that while passing the
impugned order, the Court below failed to appreciate that as per the
settled law, the provisions of Section 311 Cr.PC could be invoked at any
stage of the trial, if the evidence or the witness sought to be summoned,
was essential for ensuring justice to the parties. It was thus, submitted
that since the trial of the case was still underway and the judgment had
not been pronounced yet, there was no question of the trial being
delayed or the precious time of the Court being wasted by the petitioner
by filing the application under Section 311 Cr.PC. A prayer has,
therefore, been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for
allowing the instant petition as the aforementioned three witnesses
sought to be summoned by the petitioner, would help in the just
adjudication of the complaint in hand.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
relevant material on record.
4. As per allegations levelled in the complaint, which has been
SONIA BURA
2023.09.26 13:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:126185
annexed as Annexure P-1, the respondent-accused received
Rs.7,50,000/- from the petitioner-complainant as earnest money on
16.02.2016 and promised to get sale deed executed qua the land
measuring 2B-15B-12-3/4B situated at village Manki, Tehsil Samrala
District Ludhiana @ Rs.20,50,000/- per acre in his favour. It was agreed
upon between the parties that in case of failure to get the sale deed
executed, the respondent-accused was to pay double the amount of
earnest money being damages and expenses to the petitioner-
complainant. Consequently, being part payment, the respondent-
accused issued cheque No.000010 dated 09.08.2016 for an amount of
Rs.10,50,000/- to the complainant, drawn on HDFC Bank, Khanna,
which on presentation was dishonoured. Since the accused failed to
make the payment of amount even after receipt of the statutory notice,
the complaint in question was instituted against him by the petitioner.
5. No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
argued that the three witnesses for whose summoning he had filed an
application under Section 311 Cr.PC, were essential for the just decision
of the case in hand, however, perusal of his application under Section
311 Cr.PC annexed as Annexure P-4 reveals that it is completely barren
as to the reasons why these three witnesses are required to be
summoned and how they would be essential for the just adjudication of
the complaint in hand. Furthermore, it is a matter of record that the
petitioner had earlier also moved a similar application under Section 311
Cr.PC, which for reasons best known to the petitioner, was not pressed
SONIA BURA
2023.09.26 13:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:126185
and was dismissed as withdrawn.
6. No doubt, the provisions of Section 311 Cr.PC do empower
the Court to summon material witnesses and examine them at any stage
of trial, inquiry or other proceedings under Cr.PC, however, these powers
under Section 311 Cr.PC have to be exercised in accordance with the
principles of Criminal Law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deputy
Superintendent of Police vs. Tr.N.Seenivasagan, (decided on
01.03.2021) (Crl. Appeal Nos.231-232 of 2021) has categorically
observed that new evidence should not be used as a disguise for retrial
and the pre-condition while considering an application under Section 311
Cr.PC is that the evidence, which is sought to be summoned, is germane
to the issues around which the case revolves. However, as already
observed earlier no reason much less cogent finds reflected in the
application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.PC (Annexure
P-4) as to why these three witnesses should be summoned. Thus, this
Court has no hesitation in concurring with the observations made by the
Court below that the application under Section 311 Cr.PC had been filed
just to fill up the lacuna, in his case, by the complainant.
7. As a sequel to the above, present petition being devoid of
any merit stands dismissed.
22.09.2023 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
sonia JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
SONIA BURA
2023.09.26 13:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
