##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on 13.10.2026 Pronounced on 22.10.2026 Uploaded on 22.10.2026 Whether the operative part or full Judgment is pronounced: Full CRM(M) No. 1058/2025 Bansi Lal Bhardwaj …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv.

Q Vs S. Gagandeep Singh .…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Adv.

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 seeking quashment of order dated 16.11.2024 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the revisional court) as also order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class (City Judge), Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial Magistrate).

2. Vide order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the learned trial Magistrate, the application of the petitioner/accused for summoning of defence witnesses except to the extent of three witnesses, has been rejected. The said order has been upheld by the learned revisional court in terms of order impugned dated 16.11.2024.

Rakesh Kumar

2026.10.17 07:13 I att est to the accuracy and integrity of this document

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. It appears that the respondent/complainant has filed a complaint against the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of cheque dated 20.09.2009 for an amount of ₹10,00,000/- drawn on Jammu Rural Bank, Bohri Patta Jammu. It appears that the respondent/complainant has concluded his evidence and on 20.04.2019, the statement of the petitioner/accused under section 342 J&KCr.P.C. was recorded. While making his statement, the petitioner/accused has opted to enter his defence by leading evidence to prove his defence that he did not owe any money to the respondent/complainant.

5. It was stated by the petitioner/accused, in his statement under section 342 J&KCr.P.C. that the complainant is a property dealer and at his instance, he had persuaded his friends and relatives to sell their lands. He has further stated that the respondent/complainant sold about 30 kanals of land to his clients after purchasing the same from his friends and relatives, regarding which sale deeds were executed. That he is a witness to these sale deeds. He has further stated that when his friends and relatives came to know that the complainant had purchased the land from them at the rate of ₹1.46 lacs per kanal and sold it at the rate of ₹2.30 lacs per kanal, one of his relatives, Sh. Sham Lal refused to sell his land. He has further stated that the complainant went to the house of Sh. Sham Lal a number of times, whereafter, it was decided that the complainant would get back the land from his clients and that he would pay the money back to them at the rate of ₹3.00 lacs per kanal. In this regard, a settlement was arrived at between the parties and in terms of the said settlement, six cheques were issued by the petitioner/accused but the complainant did not adhere to the terms of the settlement and he refused to give back the land.

6. In order to prove his aforesaid defense, the petitioner/accused furnished a list of 19 witnesses and deposited their diet expenses. Most of these witnesses were sought to be produced to prove the alleged sale transactions. Learned trial court vide impugned order dated 11.09.2023, while allowing the petitioner/accused to record statements of two witnesses, who had already been examined, also permitted him to examine one out of witness Nos. 18 and 19. Besides this, witness No. 17, Record Keeper, Income Tax Department was also permitted to be examined. The application to the extent of other witnesses was disallowed on the ground that the petitioner/accused has furnished a long list of witnesses, just to protract the proceedings. The said order has been upheld by the learned revisi