IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 2032 of 2026 ==========================================================

VIPUL H SHAH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. HEMANG S TRIVEDI(10045) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. MANAV MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 11/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. By filing the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate below Application Exh.28 as well as the order passed by the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 617 of 2025 which was dismissed vide order dated 21.01.2026.

2. The petitioner herein is facing the prosecution for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He has submitted an Application vide Exh. 28 before the learned Trial Court seeking to recall the complainant as certain questions could not be asked by the petitioner to him during his cross-examination which had taken place earlier, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the questions which are sought to be asked by the Petitioner to the complainant have arisen after the deposition of another witness was recorded before the trial court. Thus, certain questions could not have been asked by the petitioner at the time of cross-examination which had taken place on the earlier occasion. He submitted that the learned trial court had dismissed the Application submitted by the Petitioner by holding that the Petitioner is seeking to fill up the lacuna in his defence which is not correct. He also submitted that the learned Sessions Court has also committed an error in dismissing the Revision Application challenging the order passed by the learned Trial Court. He therefore submitted to allow the present Application and quash and set aside the impugned orders.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Nandish Thakar appears on behalf of Respondent No.2 – Original Complainant has opposed the present Application. Registry to accept his Vakalatnama and place the same on record.

4. Learned APP for the State has also opposed the Petition.

5. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. From the record it appears that the recording of the deposition of the complainant had taken place on the earlier occasion and ample opportunity was granted to the Petitioner for cross-examining the complainant at the relevant time and accordingly the complainant was cross-examined in detail at the behest of the present Petitioner. Thereafter when the trial was at the stage of recording of further statement of the Petitioner an Application was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner for recall of the complainant for further cross-examination. It is on the Petitioner that certain questions are required to be asked to the complainant in cross-examination after the deposition of witnesses was recorded vide Exh.25. The deposition of the witness in question was recorded on 20.09.2025 whereas the Application for recall of the complainant was submitted on 18.11.2025. If certain questions were require to be asked to the complainant pursuant to the deposition of the witnesses, the Application for recall of the complainant ought to have been given immediately after the recording of evidence of the witnesses was completed. It is at the fag end of the trial that the Petitioner had submitted an Application for recall of the complainant which was rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court.

6. Having regard to these facts the orders passed by the learned Courts do not require any interference at the hands of this