##PAGE1##

CRM-M-17690-2026 (O&M)

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

56 CRM-M-17690-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision : 06.04.2026

Jagwinder Singh @Bunty & Anr.

..... Petitioners

VERSUS

Harkirat Singh ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Argued by : Mr. Manish Kansra, Advocate for the petitioners.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This petition under Section 528 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘BNSS’ only, has been filed for quashing of order dated 03.02.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Amritsar, hereinafter being referred to as ‘revisional Court’ only, in a revision petition. In the present petition, the quashing of order dated 26.09.2025, passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class Amritsar, has also been sought.

2. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that at the instance of respondent/complainant, hereinafter being referred to as ‘respondent’ only, a complaint for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, has been filed against the petitioners/accused, hereinafter being referred to as ‘petitioners’ only. The abovesaid complaint is pending before the learned trial Court. During the

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.06 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-17690-2026 (O&M)

2 course of abovementioned trial, the petitioners filed an application under Section 348 of BNSS for recalling the complainant for further cross- examination. However, the learned trial Court by virtue of order dated 26.09.2025 dismissed the abovementioned application. Aggrieved of the abovementioned order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned revisional Court, which was dismissed by virtue of order dated 03.02.2026. Both the abovementioned orders are under challenge in the

present petition.

3. The abovementioned orders have been passed by the Courts below with regard to an application filed by the petitioners under Section 348 of BNSS. It was alleged by the petitioner that they had engaged a counsel to defend themselves in the abovementioned complaint, and that during the course of trial, when witnesses were examined by the respondent, the abovesaid witnesses were duly cross-examined by the counsel engaged by the petitioners. According to petitioners, their previous counsel had cross- examined the respondent, and that during the pendency of abovementioned case, when the petitioners engaged new counsel, it was told to them that their earlier counsel, at the time of cross-examination of respondent, had not cross-examined him with regard to several crucial aspects and therefore, it

was necessary to recall the respondent for further cross-examination.

4. The application under Section 348 of BNSS was opposed by the respondent. Thereafter, the learned trial Court by virtue of order dated 26.09.2025 dismissed the abovementioned application and the revision

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.06 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-17690-2026 (O&M)

3 petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 26.09.2025 has been

dismissed by the learned revisional Court on 03.02.2026.

5. With regard to abovementioned fact situation, it is relevant to note here that there is a question mark with regard to maintainability of revision petition against an order passed by the learned trial Court, on an application under Section 348 of BNSS. Hence, with regard to verdict of the learned revisional Court, it is hereby observed that being not maintainable, the revision petition was bound to be dismissed by the learned revisional Court. Thus, it is held that there is no scope for indulgence in the

abovementioned verdict of the learned revisional Court.

6. As far as the order dated 26.09.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, is concerned, a bare perusal of the abovementioned order shows that the learned trial Court was not convinced with the plea take