IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SANJAY SINGH …Petitioner(s)

Versus BIKRAM SINGH MAJITHIA …Respondent(s)

1. The date when the judgment is reserved 10.03.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.03.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 27.03.2026

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or Full whether the full judgment is pronounced

5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and Not Applicable reasons thereof CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Nikhil Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. D.S. Sobti, Advocate and Mr. Sultaan Singh Sangha, Advocate, Mr. Savpreet Gujral, Advocate and Mr. Bhavesh Puri, Advocate for the respondent.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.

The petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr. P.C.), for setting aside the order dated 25.02.2021, Annexure P-10, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, whereby the petitioner’s application seeking permission to summon judicial file of the case titled State v. Jagjit Singh alias Jagjit Singh Chahal, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation, to cross-examine the respondent/complainant in complaint case CRM/69/2016, dated 07.01.2016 titled Bikram Singh Majithia v. Sanjay Singh and others, has been declined; a prayer has also been made to defer cross-

examination of the complainant.

2. As per facts apparent on record, the respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 190 Cr.P.C. for commission of offences of criminal defamation and publication under Sections 499, 500, 501, 502 and 120-B IPC, dated 07.01.2016, Annexure P-1. He was summoned along with co-accused to face trial vide order dated 22.01.2016, Annexure P-2. The examination-in-chief of the respondent/complainant was recorded on 04.12.2017, and thereafter, on 14.08.2019. He was partially cross-examined on 03.10.2019, it was deferred on request of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused; and was again cross-examined on 17.02.2021 but it could not be concluded. On 25.02.2021, during further cross-examination respondent/complainant was confronted with a photocopy of the statement made by one Jagjit Singh Chahal before the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a case pending before the Special Judge, CBI at Mohali. However, an objection was raised on behalf of the complainant regarding inadmissibility of the photocopy, and also that the same did not concern the complainant or the accused of the case. Therefore, the petitioner moved an application for permission to summon judicial file of that case titled State v. Jagjit Singh alias Jagjit Singh Chahal, pending before the Special Judge, CBI at Mohali, Annexure P-9. The application was, however, dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 25.02.2021, which reads as under:

CWI Bikram Singh Majithia, re-called for further cross-

examination on SA.

X X X X mn. by Sh. Himmat Singh Shergill, Advocate with Sh.

Ferry Sofat, Advocate & Sh. Kashmir Singh Malhi, Advocate.

I do not know whether Jagjit Singh Chahal made statement before the Enforcement Directorate against me. Statement mark BX put to the witness (Objection by counsel for the complainant regarding putting the said document being a photocopy, inadmissible, source not known and does not concern the complainant or the accused of the present case or the matter in hand. (Document being photostat copy cannot be put and photocopy is taken on record at this stage.).

The learned counsel for accused has moved an application for permission to summon the judicial file of case titled as State Vs. Jagjit Singh Chahal pending in the court of Ms. Harinder Kaur Sidhu, Special Judge, CBI and Enforcement Directorate, Mohali. It is averred in the application that the accused intends to put the statement of Jagjit Singh Chahal to the witness and the aforesaid file be summoned. Heard. The present case is