JUDGMENT

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 10.05.2024, passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petition bearing No. 142/2024, with prayer to allow the petitioner’s application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for re-examination of the respondent/ complainant.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138/142 Negotiable Instruments Act [“NI Act”], with allegations that cheque issued by the petitioner towards discharge of his liability was dishonoured with remarks, “Payment stopped by Drawer”, vide

cheque return memo dated 30.06.2020. Petitioner did not make payment despite demand notice dated 28.07.2020.

3. Petitioner was summoned by the trial Court and at present, the matter is at the stage of defence evidence.

4. Petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for recall of complainant/respondent for re-examination. Such application came to be dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 05.03.2024. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge vide Criminal Revision Petition bearing No. 142/2024, titled, “Vimal Ghai vs State”. However, the revision was dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.05.2024. It is this order which has been challenged before this Court.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that petitioner has paid back the loan amount in installments against valid receipts duly signed by the complainant/respondent, but respondent has made false statement that receipts DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 do not bear his signatures.

6. It is further submitted that previous counsel of the petitioner did not properly cross-examine the complainant/respondent inasmuch as the material questions in respect of aforesaid were not asked to complainant/respondent. The true facts of transactions between the petitioner and the complainant/respondent have not been

brought before the trial Court, which are vital and are required for just decision of the case.

7. It has been submitted that the aforesaid lapse was discovered after the present counsel was engaged and immediately, thereafter, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C was filed for recall of complainant/respondent for cross-examination.

8. It is argued that petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer because of lapse of previous counsel. It is submitted that with a view to curtail the delay, petitioner has no objection if the trial is ordered to be continued on day to day basis.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for complainant/ respondent has submitted that complainant/respondent was cross examined by the petitioner way back in the year 2022/2023 on three different occasions, namely, 03.12.2022, 22.12.2022 and 07.03.2023. The application for recall was filed after a long gap, in the year 2024 i.e. after a gap of two years from the date when the complainant/respondent was first cross-examined. It is argued that granting permission to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant/respondent would amount to filling up the lacunas. It is submitted that petitioner has just been adopting the delaying tactics under the garb of Section 311 Cr.P.C application, and therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

10. The Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsels, and have perused the material on record.

11. Section 311 Cr.P.C lays down the procedure for summoning or recall of any witness at any stage of the trial which can be permitted in order to prevent the failure of justice. Undisputedly, the Court has wide power under Section 311 Cr.P.C to summon any person as a witness and recall for evidence at any stage of the trial, if it is felt that the same is required for just decision of the case. However, such power cannot be exercised in a routine man