JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J.

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for quashing of order dated 18.01.2025, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as learned trial Court') in Criminal Complaint bearing NACT No. 2049 of 2020, titled as Gurpreet Singh vs. Kapil Batra Productions and another, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short N. I. Act'), whereby an application filed by the petitioner for summoning certain witnesses/material in his defence had been partly allowed, while declining the prayer made by him for summoning certain witnesses as well as documents.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that respondent No. 1 has filed the aforesaid complaint against petitioner No. 1-firm and petitioner No. 2, being its proprietor, under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. The petitioner has been summoned and is facing trial as an accused in the aforementioned complaint. The case is at the stage of producing defence evidence. The petitioner filed an application (Annexure P-3) before the learned trial Court making prayer for summoning some record and witnesses as mentioned in detail in paragraph Nos. 3(a) to 3(h) of the application. After hearing arguments on this application, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order, thereby allowing the prayer made by the petitioner to summon witnesses mentioned at paragraph Nos. 3(a), (b) and (g) of the application but declined to summon the witnesses whose names have been mentioned in paragraph Nos. 3(c), (d), (e), (f) and (h) as well as the record sought to be summoned by such witnesses. It will be proper to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, which read as under:

"Accused have furnished the list of defence witnesses in which nine (09) defence witnesses have been mentioned. Regarding witness mentioned at Sr.No.(a and b) i.e. handwriting expert and forensic expert to examine pronote, cheque qua the age of ink and validity of signature and officer concern of General Post Office with regard to issuance of postal receipts which are printed and hand written, the same stands allowed as these witnesses are relevant to decide the present complaint case. With regard to summoning of witnesses (c & d) i.e. record of income tax department reflecting the deposit of TDS in favour of Gurpreet Singh and summoning of Officer of bank concerned wherein the complainant had been getting back his TDS refund is declined as no ground regarding any TDS has been taken during the notice of accusation, cross examination of complainant and at the time of recording of statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C.and moreover, these are not relevant to decide the case.

With regard to summoning of witnesses mentioned at Sr.No.(e and f) with regard to flight record pertaining to traveling of Rajan Batra to Mumbai and its return on 28.02.2020 and officer concerned of building/flat of Rajan Batra at Mumbai with record of CCTV Camera showing presence of Rajan Batra at Mumbai from 20.02.2020 till 28.02.2020 is also declined as alleged signatures on the cheque in question is of Kapil Batra and not Rajan Batra. Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court has stayed the matter regarding the accused Rajan Batra and these are not relevant witnesses for just decision of the case.

With regard to witnesses mentioned at Sr.No.(g) i.e. accused Kapil Batra and Rajan Batra who wanted to give evidence in the present case and they are allowed to depose in the present case. However, accused are directed to file application under section 315 Cr.P.C. if they wanted to come into witness box as defence witness. With regard to summoning of witness mentioned at Sr.No.(h) i.e. record of police of Anti Fraud Department pertaining to complaints filed by Kapil Batra and Rajan Batra against Gurpreet Singh is declined as it is