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 03.12.2024 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad in complaint bearing NACT No. 961 of 2021, titled as Pradeep Sharma vs. Arun Kumar Patel @ Sameer, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short N. I. Act), whereby an application filed by the petitioner/complainant 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 petitioner under Section 138 of the N. I. Act on the allegations that the petitioner had given a friendly loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the respondent. In order to discharge his liability, the respondent had issued two cheques for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on 03.02.2021 but on presentation of the same before the banker of the petitioner, the same were dishonoured with the remarks funds insufficient'. The respondent failed to pay the amount due against him even after receipt of legal notice from the petitioner, thereby compelling the petitioner 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 summoning two persons namely Ashok Kumar and Ravinder Tewatia as witnesses on the grounds that during his cross-examination, it had surfaced that the aforesaid loan was advanced to the respondent in the presence of these persons. After hearing both the parties, the learned Magistrate had dismissed this application by observing that the names of proposed witnesses were not mentioned in the list of witnesses, despite the fact that the complainant was aware that the alleged loan was given to the respondent in their presence and also by observing that it was the afterthought of the complainant to bring the above mentioned persons in his evidence with the purpose of filling up the lacunas. 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 that the examination of the aforesaid persons was essential for just and proper decision of the case as the aforesaid loan was advanced to the respondent in their presence. 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 additional witness is sought to be examined. 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 judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme in Varsha Garg vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others : 2022 (4) RCR (Criminal) 328. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgments passed by the coordinate Benches of this Court in Gaurav Kumar vs. Avtar Singh : 2022 (3) NIJ 478.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order as the same is well reasoned and based on correct appreciation of facts and materials produced before the learned trial Court. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

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

7. The copies of the impugned order and the application filed by the petitioner seeking examination of aforesaid witnesses have been perused