IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Mithu Singh ....Petitioner versus Pawan Kumar ....Respondent Date of Decision: February 09, 2026 Date of Uploading: February 11, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Goyal, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing the impugned order dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mansa, to the extent, whereby, request of the respondent-complainant for re-

examination of CW1 – Pawan Kumar has been allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent-complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘NI Act’) against the petitioner- accused before the concerned Court on account of dishonour of cheque. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner-accused was summoned to face trial and that the complainant (CW-1) tendered his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief on 09.09.2021 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner-accused thereafter cross- examined the said witness (CW-1) on various dates, namely 05.03.2024, 22.08.2024 and 10.09.2024. Learned counsel has further iterated that the cross-examination of the complainant was completed, and thereafter, on 02.12.2024, further proceedings were taken up, on which date, on the request of learned counsel for the complainant, the learned Court below allowed the re-examination of the said witness (CW-1) on the premise that the documents (marked A to M) produced by the petitioner-accused during cross-examination constituted new facts for the complainant. Learned counsel has argued that since the documents (marked A to M) had been summoned pursuant to the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Court below, and specific suggestions with respect thereto were duly put to CW-1 during cross-examination, no occasion arose for permitting further re- examination in law. Learned counsel has further iterated that once the cross- examination of the complainant stood concluded, the scope of re- examination could not be expanded to fill lacunae or to explain away admissions elicited during cross-examination. It is contended that the learned Court below, without appreciating that the cross-examination of CW-1 had already concluded and without assigning any cogent or legally sustainable reasons, wrongly allowed the request for re-examination of the said witness. Such an order, according to learned counsel, amounts to an impermissible exercise of discretion and causes serious prejudice to the defence of the petitioner-accused. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, the grant of the petition in hand is sought for.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of the petition in hand by arguing that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and, therefore, does not warrant interference by this Court. It has been contended that since the documents in question were put to the complainant only during his cross- examination and the same constituted new facts from the standpoint of the complainant, the Court below has rightly acceded to the request of learned counsel for the complainant to permit re-examination of the complainant (CW-1). It has been argued that the scope of re-examination permitted by the Court below is narrowly circumscribed and confined only to the documents marked A to M, and the prosecution does not intend either to alter the substantive version of the complainant or to introduce any new facts on record. Learned counsel has further submitted that no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the petitioner, inasmuch as after the re-examination of the complainant, the petitioner