133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 30.01.2025 Manjinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus HDFC Bank Limited ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Ms. Himani Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Batala, District Gurdaspur, whereby, an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for permission to re-call CW-2 Ankush Sharma, has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a complaint (Annexure P-1) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short ‘the Act’) against the petitioner on account of dishonor of cheque No. 000002 dated 27.06.2022 amounting to Rs.15,00,000/-. The case set up by the respondent in the complaint would show that the petitioner had availed financial assistance in the shape of agriculture limit loan along with agreed interest from the respondent-Bank and executed loan documents and the petitioner agreed to repay the same on agreed terms and conditions. The petitioner had issued a cheque in discharge of his aforesaid liability. The legal notice dated 14.07.2022 was served upon the petitioner and 15 days’ time was given to him to pay the dues but he failed to pay the same and thereafter, the complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed and the petitioner was summoned by the learned trial Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner appeared before the learned trial Court and he was admitted to bail. She further submits that CW-2 Ankush Sharma has been examined by the respondent and cross examined by counsel for the petitioner, however, certain material questions were remained to put to CW2 while conducting his cross- examination by the previous counsel. The petitioner came to know about this fact when he engaged a new counsel.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in light of the said revelation and the subsequent event, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for recalling the witness CW-2 for further cross- examination. The learned trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner against the settled law vide impugned order.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate

1^st Class, Batala, District Gurdaspur.

6. The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be exercised for summoning of witnesses at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code and the Court may summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined. The Court can summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just adjudication of the case. The Court is required to form an opinion whether such evidence is necessary for a just and proper decision in that case.

7. The learned Court below has concluded that sufficient opportunities were provided to the accused/petitioner to cross-examine CW2 Ankush Sharma and to address all relevant questions concerning documents such as the statement of account, loan agreement, etc., which had already been relied upon by the witness. The Court further held that merely because certain material questions were not posed to the witness or due to a change in counsel, there was no valid ground to recall the witness for further cross-examination.

8. A two judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in VN Patil Vs. K. Niranjan in Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2021 decided on 04.03.2021 examined the scope of the po