The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of timely and effective cross-examination, the abuse of process in delaying trial proceedings, and the consequences of failing to comply with trial court directions.

JUDGMENT

Namit Kumar, J. - The challenge in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to order dated 11.10.2022 (Annexure P-34) passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, in COMA No.45263/2013 dated 04.09.2012 titled as 'M/s Jatindra Udyog v. Hex Nuts Pvt. Ltd. and another' under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereby cross-examination of CW1-Jatinder Mittal has been treated as 'Nil'.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that respondentcomplainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act') against the petitioners alleging therein that petitioners used to get done job work of heat treatment of nut bout stud and washer from the respondent from time to time on credit basis against different bills. The petitioners in order to discharge their pre-existing legally enforceable liability in part towards the respondent, issued two cheques bearing No.989237 dated 24.07.2012 and cheque bearing No.989238 dated 24.07.2012 for Rs.2,50,000/-each drawn on State Bank of India, SCB, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, in favour of the respondent. However, on presentment of the said cheques by the respondent through his bankers, 'Not Arranged For' vide bank memos dated 25.07.2012. Upon this, the respondent got issued the statutory legal notice on 14.08.2012 through his counsel calling upon the petitioners to make good the amount covered under the cheques in question but despite this, the petitioners did not pay the said amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Hence, the respondent filed the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. The trial Court acquitted the petitioners vide judgment dated 30.10.2015. Against the said judgment, respondent approached this Court by way of CRM-A-2071-MA of 2015 seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. The appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed vide order dated 21.01.2019 and the judgment of the trial Court dated 30.10.2015 was set aside by this Court and the trial Court was directed to allow the respondent to lead its complete evidence and decide the matter afresh. After service of notice, petitioners appeared before the trial Court on 04.06.2022 and were admitted to bail. Thereafter, despite availing numerous opportunities petitioners failed to cross-examine CW1 Jatinder Mittal, therefore, cross-examination of this witness has been treated as 'Nil' by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 11.10.2022. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are willing to cross-examine complainantCW1 Jatinder Mittal and the impugned order passed by the trial Court is totally wrong and erroneous and petitioners may be granted two more effective opportunities to cross-examine CW1 Jatinder Mittal.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondentcomplainant submitted that numerous opportunities were granted to the petitioners to cross-examine CW1-Jatinder Mittal, however, they have not availed the said opportunities and thus, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is perfectly justified and is liable to be upheld.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be useful to reproduce the interim orders passed by the trial Court dated 29.07.2022, 20.08.2022, 08.09.2022, 12.09.2022, 19.09.2022, 01.10.2022, 04.10.2022 and 11.10.2022, which read as under: -

'Present: Sh. Vikas Gupta Adv, for complainant.

Accused Rajinder Kumar and Lajwanti on bail with counsel.

Today an application has been moved by the Ld. counsel for accused for adjourn the case on the ground that applicant-accused wants to file SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the orders of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. Reply to the application not filed by the opposite party. However, Ld. Counsel for complainant orally contested the same and submitted that present application has been