The right to present a defense is fundamental, and a court must allow evidence to be introduced unless there is a compelling reason otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Petitioner-Prithvi Raj has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNSS’), against the order dated 18.10.2024, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in case, bearing CrMA No.1022/2024, filed in Criminal Complaint No.406/2022, titled as ‘Tajinder Singh Vs. Prithvi Raj’, whereby, the application, under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’), for producing additional evidence by the petitioner has been ordered to be dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court.

3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, as per the documents, annexed with the petition, may be summed up, as under:-

3.1. Complainant-Tajinder Singh had filed a complaint, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’), against accused-Prithvi Raj. In the said complaint, after securing the presence of accused-Prithvi Raj, notice of accusation was put to him and subsequently, the complainant was ordered to adduce evidence. Consequently, complainant has led his evidence. Thereafter, the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused, his statement, recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, and then, the opportunity was given to the accused to lead his defence evidence.

3.2. Thereafter, the application, under Section 311 of CrPC, was moved by the accused. Copy of the said application has also been annexed with the present petition.

3.3. By way of the said application, filed under Section 311 of CrPC, indulgence of the learned trial Court has been sought to permit the accused to summon concerned Clerk from Union Bank of India, Branch Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., along with bank account statement of the wife of accused, namely Smt. Sunita Devi, to prove the payment of Rs.30,000/- from her account to the account of complainant on 10.07.2024 and to examine Smt. Sunita Devi as a defence witness.

3.4. The said application had been moved on the ground that the complainant is a money lender, who used to lend money, on interest. The accused, as per the application, borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant, in the month of May, 2019, on interest @10% per month. To secure the repayment of the said amount, as per the direction of the complainant, accused gave two blank signed cheques, bearing No.179342 and 179343, to the complainant.

3.5. It is the case of the accused that on 10.07.2020, he had repaid the borrowed amount of Rs.30,000/-, through cheque No.33141906, issued by his wife, and he had also paid the interest in monthly cash installments. However, complainant allegedly misused one of the cheques and filed the complaint.

3.6. In order to prove the above facts, a prayer has been made that the application may be allowed by permitting the accused to summon the concerned Clerk from Union Bank of India, Branch Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., along with bank account statement, to prove the transaction from his wife’s account and also examine his wife, Smt. Sunita Devi, as a defence witness to prove the payment of Rs.30,000/-, made to the complainant.

3.7. The said application has been contested by the complainant by filing the reply, in which, preliminary objections have been taken that the application has been filed at a belated stage and to fill the lacunae in the case. On merits, the factual position, as mentioned in the application, has been denied and it has been prayed that the application sans merit and prayer has been made to dismiss the same.

3.8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 18.10.2024, has dismissed t