##PAGE1##

CRM-M-16085-2026 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

178 CRM-M-16085-2026 (O&M)

Decided on : 24.03.2026

Anil Kumar Malhotra ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

Vijay Kansal

..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present : Mr. Bharat Mani Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

By virtue of present petition filed under Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court has been sought for quashing of order dated 05.03.2026. The abovesaid order, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’ only. has been passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class

Ludhiana, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only.

2. The impugned order has been passed in a complaint for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. By virtue of abovementioned order, an application under Section 348 of BNSS, seeking for permission to lead additional evidence, filed by the respondent/complainant, hereinafter being referred to as

‘respondent’ only, has been allowed.

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-16085-2026 (O&M)

2

3. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that a complaint has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. It has been alleged by the respondents, in the complaint, that in discharge of his legally enforceable debt, the petitioner/accused had issued a cheque in favour of the respondent, and that on presentation before the banker of petitioner/accused, the abovesaid

cheque was dishonoured.

4. In the abovementioned complaint, during the course of trial an application under Section 348 of BNSS seeking for permission to lead additional evidence was filed by the respondent, and the same has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order. The petitioner/accused, hereinafter being referred to as ‘petitioner’ only, is

aggrieved of the abovementioned order.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is an outcome of total non-application of mind and that the settled legal principles have been ignored by the learned trial Court. While referring to the contents of statement of CW-1 recorded during the course of trial, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in his testimony, the CW-1 has specifically deposed before the learned trial Court that the copies of ‘Income Tax Returns’ along with its computation charts and balance sheet belonging to the respondent, have not been proved. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to above,

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-16085-2026 (O&M)

3

the CW-1 has also admitted that the statement of account of the account of

complainant, being maintained in ICICI Bank, too, has not been produced.

7. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, subsequently when the deficiencies in respondent’s case got exposed, the respondent with an intention to fill-up the lacunae moved an application under Section 348 of BNSS and sought permission to lead additional evidence. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, the learned trial Court has allowed the abovementioned application and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes

of law and deserves to be set aside.

8. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the principles of law laid down in the case of ‘Andeep Agro Feeds V/s Gurmeet Lal’ 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 19490. In the abovementioned case, this Court has observed that ‘the accused has the privilege to hide his defence or to open it, if so chosen, even at the last stage of the trial and in that case, the respondent/accused had opened its