The main legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition against filing a second revision petition under the garb of Section 482 CrPC, as well as the need for expeditious disposal of cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the condemnation of abuse of the legal process.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner, through the medium of this petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘CrPC’) seeks setting aside order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu (for short ‘CJM’) in complaint No.29 filed under Negotiable Instrument Act (for short ‘the NIA’) titled Sudha Sharma v. Shashi Mahajan, whereby application for submitting a list of witnesses and depositing of their diet expenses as directed in terms of interim order dated 25.10.2019 was dismissed and a cost to the tune of Rs.4,000/- was imposed. The petitioner also seeks quashment of order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the court of learned Principal Session Judge Jammu (for short ‘Revisional Court’) in Criminal Revision No. 75/2023 titled Shashi Mahajan V. Sudha Sharma whereby revision against the order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the learned CJM was dismissed.

2. The petitioner has pleaded that a highly motivated and baseless complaint under Section 138 of the NIA was filed by the respondent against the petitioner before court of learned CJM, Jammu, with respect to Cheque No.062037 dated 14.11.2007 for an amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs issued by the petitioner which was dishonoured due to ‘funds insufficient’; that the petitioner has been contesting the petition before the trial court, inter alia, on the ground that he had already paid the amount of Cheque to the respondent/complainant on 30.01.2008 at PNB Branch Shalamar, Jammu in presence of two persons Suraj Parkash and Balbir Singh, where the petitioner/accused deposited the said amount in her bank account and she has suppressed this fact in her complaint; that both the parties adduced their evidence in support of their respective claims and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 28.01.2011 closed the evidence of the petitioner/accused and posted the case for arguments, however, the petitioner feeling aggrieved challenged the order dated 28.01.2011 before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu who directed the learned Magistrate to provide two more opportunities to the petitioner/accused for leading the evidence, failing which the learned Magistrate was given liberty to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

3. Petitioner claimed to have filed two applications before the learned Magistrate, first moved to place on record a receipt dated 30.01.2008 and another was filed for re-examination and cross-examination of the respondent/complaint and in the meanwhile petitioner examined one witness on 25.03.2011.

4. It is alleged that the petitioner/accused on 06.02.2020 moved application seeking directions to the PNB Branch Shalamar Road, Jammu to furnish the bank statement of the account of the petitioner/accused w.e.f 30.01.2008 to 28.02.2008 and also grant time to the petitioner/accused to lead evidence on the ground that when the order dated 25.10.2019 was passed, the petitioner/accused could not file the list of witnesses and could not deposit the diet expenses within the time granted by the learned Magistrate due to strikes and also that the petitioner had fallen seriously ill suffering from several ailments of cardiology and partial disablement due to brain stroke; that the learned Magistrate considered the application filed by the petitioner on 06.02.2020 and vide order dated 03.05.2023, dismissed the same imposing a cost of Rs.4,000/- upon the petitioner/accused. It was alleged that by the impugned order dated 03.05.2023, learned Magistrate had eroded the sanctity of order dated 25.10.2019 and 06.02.2020 completely and virtually the order dated 25.10.2019 has been recalled/reviewed which is not permissible under the criminal jurisprudence.

5. It has been alleged that the trial court as well as revisional court have both committed illegality by passing the impugned orders closing the evidence of the petitioner/accused in the case against the principles of the criminal jurisprudence and prayed that this petition be allowed and the imp