JUDGMENT :

(Aman Chaudhary, J.)

The present petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for setting aside order dated 04.07.2016, Annexure P11, and order dated 20.07.2016, Annexure P12, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jalandhar, whereby the applications filed by the petitioner under Sections 311 CrPC in Criminal Complaint No.34275 of 2013 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were dismissed.

2. Briefly put, the petitioner is alleged to have approached the respondent-company for the financial assistance and in order to discharge part of his legal debt/liability, the cheque bearing No.461687 dated 28.06.2013 issued in favour of the complainant for an amount of Rs.63,000/, was dishonoured vide memo dated 29.06.2013 with remarks "insufficient funds", that led to filing of the complaint in question.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner would contend that CW1 Gulshan Dhamija, could not be properly cross-examined by the previous counsel of the petitioner on certain points as Ex.D2, the loan agreement, was entered into between M/s.SS Pharmaceutical and the complainant-company, however, the cheque in question was issued by MAS Pharmaceutical Ltd. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant is having any connection with M/s.MAS Pharmaceutical and to prove it, the petitioner had filed second application for summoning the witness from the office of Registrar of Companies. The said fact could not be noticed by the earlier counsel. Thus, he prays for grant of one opportunity to lead the aforesaid evidence.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent would state that the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 CrPC on 16.01.2015 and thereafter, having availed of more than 32 opportunities, the defence evidence was closed by order on 20.05.2016 and when the case was listed for arguments, the applications have been filed at such belated stage only with a view to delay the proceedings and fill up lacuna. The trial Court has thus, rightly dismissed the same.

5. Heard.

6. At the outset, it is apposite to refer to para 2 of the application dated 24.05.2016, seeking to recall CW1 for further cross-examination, wherein the reason for the same has been stated. The same reads thus:

"That in the above said case the complainant got examine CW1 Gulshan Dhamija and he was cross examined by previous counsel of the applicant and the said counsel has not cross examined on the points which has been explained to him. In fact, as per loan agreement Ex.D2, the alleged deal was between the complainant M/s.S.S. Pharmaceutical through its partner and the complainant company. But the cheque in question was alleged to be issued by the company M/s.M.A.S. Pharmaceutical Ltd. The previous counsel of the applicant has not cross examined the witness on this point and thorough cross examination of the witness is required on this point and for which the summoning the CW1 is necessary. The applicant has changed his counsel and after going through the said cross examination it is necessary to summon the CW1 for further cross examination as number of documents are to be put to the said witness during cross examination."

7. Similarly, the ground taken in the 2nd application dated 19.07.2016, seeking permission to summon witness from office of Registrar companies is considered relevant to be referred to, reads thus:

"2. That the present case has been filed against the applicant but in the head note of the complaint, nothing has been mentioned about the status of applicant and about the constitution of the company M/s.M.A.S. Pharmaceutical Pvt.Ltd. There is nothing