IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on:10.11.2025 Suresh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Mohan Lal ...Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Present: Mr. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

****

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, is for quashing the impugned order dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Abohar, whereby his application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed in Criminal Complaint Case No.MACT-836/2022 dated 01.08.2022 titled as “Suresh Kumar vs. Mohan Lal”

has been dismissed.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner before this Court is the complainant who had filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the respondent. On summoning of the accused in the said criminal complaint, the trial commenced and during trial, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling the complainant to prove the pronote and receipt dated 16.06.2020 issued by the respondent and also for summoning Kapil and Avinash Sethi to prove said pronote and receipt, however, on hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court declined the same vide impugned order dated 08.10.2025. Hence, the present petition has been filed assailing the aforesaid impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the author of the complaint and has field the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the accused. It is submitted that the cheque issued by the accused, on presentation, was dishonoured with the remarks “funds insufficient” and hence, the notice was issued and on non-compliance of the same, the complaint was filed. He has submitted that the present case is about proving the loan amount obtained by the respondent and issuance of cheque in question for discharging his legal liability. It is submitted that at the time of issuance of loan to the respondent, he had got scribed one pronote acknowledging the loan amount, however, at the time of filing the complaint, the pronote was misplaced and hence, the same could not be annexed with the complaint filed. He further submitted that exhibition of this pronote is very essential for justice decision of the case and hence, the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed, which has been illegally declined by the learned trial Court. It is submitted that at the time of scribing the pronote, a receipt was also issued in presence of the marginal witnesses, namely, Kapil and Avinash Sethi. It is submitted that the pronote and receipt could not be produced earlier due to bona fide reason that the same were misplaced. In support of his arguments, he relied upon two decisions of this Court rendered in the cases of Suresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 2678736 and Bhupinder Bhatia vs. Manisha Sareen, 2023(1) RCR (Criminal) 331 and submitted that the learned trial Court had failed to appreciate the facts of the case on the anvil of settled law and hence, the impugned order, being unsustainable in the eyes of law, deserves to be set aside by allowing the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

4. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and filed his memorandum of appearance, which is taken on record. He vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting that the case is fixed before the trial Court for final arguments and at this stage, the application filed under Section 311 cannot be entertained and, thus, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the said application.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record with their able assistance.

6. Before proceeding further, Section 311 Cr.P.C. is reprod