[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narayan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 24 December, 2025
CRM-M-73512-2025 1
159
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-73512-2025
Date of Decision : 24.12.2025
Narayan Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Ms. Neha Gund, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. Instant petition, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section
482 Cr.P.C.), has been filed for quashing of the order dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure
P-4) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur, Punjab in Criminal
Complaint Case No. NACT/1626/2023 dated 23.11.2023 under Sections 138, 142
of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Annexure P-1) whereby the application dated
nil (Annexure P-3) seeking recall of the complaint for further cross-examination,
was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that infact reading out the
paragraph No. 8(e) of the petition that examination of the complainant witness was
conducted as witness on 12.03.2025 and thereupon the Court recorded as:
"CW-1 Abhay Partap Singh is present and examined. No other CW is
present today. Now, case is adjourned to 16.05.2025 for remaining
evidence of complainant."
1 of 6
3. He further argues that after examination of the said witness, on the
next date of hearing i.e. 16.05.2025, no witness was produced by the complainant
and the proceedings were adjourned by the trial Court for 04.07.2025. On
08.12.2025, some more documents i.e. Ex. C-5 to C-7, detailing therein the source
from where the respondent-complainant acquired the amount to pay the same to the
petitioner as personal loan has been mentioned. Counsel submits that since the
additional documents have been tendered by the respondent-complainant at later
stage, now the accused requires to get the witness confronted with his own
documents, as same are not admitted by the petitioner.
She further submits that cheque in dispute was taken by the
respondent-complainant some where in the year 2015, which was misused in the
year 2023, for the purpose of filing the instant complaint against him.
4. The issue involved in the present case, is to call the witness especially
the complainant again, despite already conducting cross-examination of that
witness. Many a times it has been experienced that where accused wishes to call
the prosecution/complainant witnesses once again on being dissatisfied with the
cross-examination already having been conducted by him or his counsel, which he
thinks was incomplete or not the exhaustive one. In such situation, this Court has
been taking lenient view by having the sole idea that denial may not give a chance
to the accused to develop a feeling of prejudice of his right. In some other cases,
opportunities have been granted by compensating the other side i.e. the
complainant.
5. Thus, for deciding the issue raised by the petitioner and to save the
time of the proceedings, which are pending before the trial Court, this Court does
not find any necessity to call upon the respondent-complainant before this Court.
2 of 6
6. In the case of T. Nagappa vs. Y.R. Muralidhar, 2008(5) SCC 633,
paragraphs 8 and 11 read as follows:
"8. An accused has a right to fair trial. He has a right to defend
himself as a part of his human as also fundamental right as enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to defend
oneself and for that purpose to adduce evidence is recognized by
Parliament in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 243 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, which reads as under:
"243 Evidence for defence-(1) ***
(2) If the accused, after he has entered upon his defence, applies to
the Magistrate to issue any process for compelling the attendance of
any witness for the purpose of examination or cross-examination, or
the production of any document or other thing, the Magistrate shall
issue such process unless he considers that such application should be
refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or
delay or for defeating the ends of justice and such ground shall be
recorded by him in writing:
Provided that, when the accused has cross-examined or had the
opportunity of cross-examining any witness before entering on his
defence, the attendance of such witness shall not be compelled under
this Section, unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary for
the ends of justice."
9. xxxx
10. xxx
11. The issue now almost stands concluded by a decision of this
3 of 6
Court in Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam- (in which one of us,
L.s. Panta, J., was a member) wherein it was held: (SCC p. 262, para
12)
"12. Section 243(2) is clear that a Magistrate holding an
inquiry under CrPC in respect of an offence triable by him does
not exceed his powers under Section 243(2) if, in the interest of
justice, he directs to send the document for enabling the same to
be compared by a handwriting expert because even in adopting
this course, the purpose is to enable the Magistrate to compare
the disputed signature or writing with the admitted writing or
signature of the accused and to reach his own conclusion with
the assistance of the expert. The appellant is entitled to rebut
the case of the respondent and if the document viz. the cheque
on which the respondent has relied upon for initiating criminal
proceedings against the appellant would furnish good material
for rebutting that case, the Magistrate having declined to send
the document for the examination and opinion of the
handwriting expert has deprived the appellant of an opportunity
of rebutting it. The appellant cannot be convicted without an
opportunity being given to her to present her evidence and if it
is denied to her, there is no fair trial. 'Fair trial' includes fair
and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove her
innocence. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a
valuable right. Denial of that right means denial of fair trial. It
is essential that rules of procedure designed to ensure justice
should be scrupulously followed, and the courts should be
jealous in seeking that there is no breach of them."
7. The guiding principle in the judgment of T. Nagappa's case (supra) is
that an accused must be afforded an opportunity to defend himself as part of his
fundamental right. Therefore, such a right should not be denied on mere
4 of 6
technicalities, particularly when granting permission to lead evidence of his choice
is not causing any prejudice to the complainant.
8. This Court is conscious of the fact that documents Exhibits C-5 to C-
7 were tendered by the complainant on 08.12.2025, whereas application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. (Section 348 BNSS), had already been moved by the petitioner
on 04.07.2025, i.e. about a month earlier. Thus, the submission addressed before
this Court is contrary to the factual position on record.
9. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that submission addressed by
the petitioner is liable to be repelled being contrary to the factual position.
However, a fact can not be ignored that once the additional documents have now
been tendered by the complainant as Exhibits C-5 to C-7, the witness can be called
any time before decision of the case by exercising power under Section 311
Cr.P.C.
10. Asking the petitioner to go back to the trial Court and to move
application in regard to the necessity for cross-examining the complainant at this
stage, would be nothing but sheer wastage of time and multiplicity of moving of
applications and then awaiting decision thereon.
11. In view of the above, the petitioner is granted one effective
opportunity to cross-examine the complainant-Abhay Partap Singh, who has
already been examined as CW-1, within two weeks from today or within one week
of the date already fixed before the trial Court, whichever is earlier in point of
time. However, it is clarified that before conducting the cross-examination of the
said witness, the petitioner would pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to respondent No.
2/complainant, and if the complainant wishes to pray for recall of the present order
passed by this Court, he will have to pay back the said amount to the petitioner-
5 of 6
accused, before filing the application for recall of the order.
12. Let the complainant be informed by the trial Court about the present
order and also to submit himself to the Court for the purpose of affording
opportunity to the petitioner to conduct further cross-examination.
13. Except one effective opportunity, no other chance would be afforded
to the petitioner.
14. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
December 24, 2025 JUDGE
reena
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
6 of 6
