JUDGMENT :

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short BNSS') making prayer for quashing the order dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohtak in complaint bearing COMA No. 1046 of 2018, titled as Rajesh vs. Tarun, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short N. I. Act), whereby an application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code') had been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the aforesaid complaint has been filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the N. I. Act on the allegations that the petitioner had purchased a car from the respondent for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,70,000/-. An amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- was paid by the petitioner and rest of the amount i.e. Rs. 4,25,000/- was to be paid by him by raising a loan from the bank. In order to discharge his liability, the petitioner had issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 3,70,000/- on 12.01.2018 but on presentation of the same before the banker of the respondent, the same was dishonoured with the remarks funds insufficient'. The petitioner failed to pay the amount due against him even after receipt of legal notice from the respondent, thereby compelling the respondent to file the aforesaid complaint. Process has been issued against the petitioner and he is facing trial before the learned trial Court.

3. The petitioner had moved an application under Section 311 of the Code for re-examination of the respondent/complainant. After taking reply on this application and hearing the arguments, the learned Magistrate had dismissed this application by observing that the petitioner had availed sufficient opportunities to conclude his evidence and had already cross-examined the respondent/complainant at length. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the learned trial Court ignored the fact the cross-examination of the respondent was incomplete due to inadvertence of his counsel as the questions with regard to issuance of cheque, being signatory of the cheque, the exact place of issuance of the cheque and the name of the witness could not be put to the respondent. It is further argued that there are as many as ten questions, as detailed in paragraph No. 14 of the petition, which are to be

asked from the respondent/complainant. It is submitted that re-examination of the respondent is necessary for just and proper decision of the case. A perusal of the impugned order would show that no specific reasoning had been given by the learned trial Court for dismissing the application. A totally non-speaking and cryptic order had been passed. It is well settled law that there is no bar in case any person is called for re-examination. It is, thus, urged that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. To fortify his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgments passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kusum Ayar vs. Satish Kumar : 2022 (2) NIJ 304 and order dated 06.03.2024 passed in CRM-M-11849-2024, titled as Foremost Dairies Private Ltd. and another vs. Mohammad Yaseen as well as upon order dated 24.07.2024 passed by this Court in CRM-M-31460-2024, titled as Gursewak Singh Cheema vs. Satnam Singh to submit that a party cannot be allowed to suffer due to negligence or omission on the part of his counsel.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and have also perused the material placed on record.

6. The copies of the impugned order and the application filed by the petitioner seeking production of additional evidence have b