IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6063-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.02.2026 Manpreet Singh ...Petitioner Versus M/s Muskan Fashion ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Chandan Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for setting aside the order dated 15.10.2025, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, in Criminal Complaint bearing No. COMA/14509 dated 01.12.2017, titled as M/s Muskan Fashion vs. Manpreet Singh, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, whereby the defence evidence of the petitioner was closed by Court order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is facing trial in the aforementioned complaint. The case was fixed for 15.10.2025 for defence evidence in the form of comparison of his signatures through a handwriting expert. However, the defence evidence of the petitioner was closed by the learned trial Court by observing that the case falls under action plan cases and that the petitioner had sought leading of additional evidence by moving an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and still, he was seeking adjournments without there being any cogent reason. It is argued that non-examination of said witness on previous dates was neither intentional nor deliberate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that it is settled law that the right to lead defence evidence is an important right given to an accused and the learned trial Court should not have been hyper-technical in passing the impugned order. A great prejudice shall be caused to the rights of defence of the petitioner, if he is not allowed to lead his evidence through the said witness. Hence, it is prayed that the petitioner may be granted one opportunity to conclude his defence evidence.

3. This Court has heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. On a perusal of the record, it is evident that the defence of the petitioner was closed when the matter was fixed for leading defence evidence by way of examination of a handwriting expert for comparison of signatures. The record does not reflect that the petitioner had deliberately or contumaciously avoided leading his defence evidence. Rather, the closure appears to have been ordered on account of repeated adjournments and the case falling under action plan cases. It is well settled that the right of an accused to lead defence evidence is a valuable and substantive right and denial of such opportunity, particularly when the evidence sought to be led goes to the root of the defence, may result in serious prejudice. In the present case, the proposed evidence relating to comparison of signatures is directly connected with the core issue involved in a complaint under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order reflects an overly technical approach and in the facts and circumstances of the case, deserves to be interfered with in order to advance the cause of substantial justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 15.10.2025 is set aside. The petitioner is granted one effective and final opportunity to conclude his defence evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by him with the learned trial Court, which shall be disbursed to the respondent/complainant.

5. It has been noticed that despite closing of defence evidence on 15.10.2025 and posting the case for 31.10.2025 for addressing final arguments, the learned Magistrate has not heard the arguments till date. This Court considers it appropriate to bring to the notice of the Magistrate concerned, the instructions issued by this Court from time to time and especially the instructions issued vide letter No. 1233/Spl. Gaz.II.17 dated 04.05.