IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8164-2026 Date of Decision: 12.02.2026 Mehar Singh and another ..... Petitioners Versus Puran Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Rajesh Tushar, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned JMIC, Kurukshetra, in complaint dated 10.11.2021 under Section 138 of N.I. Act i.e. NACT-1070-2021 (Annexure P-1) vide which the right of petitioner under Section 145(2) of N.I. Act, for cross-examination of the complainant, has been closed without giving sufficient opportunity.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that respondent/complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioners for dishonour of cheque of Rs.1,17,000/-. On the basis of the preliminary evidence, the trial Court found a prima facie case against the petitioners and thus, summoned them to face the trial. On the summoning of the petitioners, the trial commenced. When the trial was at the advanced stage, the petitioners filed an application for exemption from personal appearance and the case was adjourned to 30.09.2025, however, on the said date, Ld. JMIC, Kurukshetra had closed the right of the petitioners for cross-examining the complainant without giving sufficient opportunity. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure P-2), the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have been prosecuted in a complaint bearing NACT No.1070 of 2021 dated 10.11.2021 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act(Annexure P-1). He submits that the counsel for the petitioners representing the petitioners before the trial Court, wanted to cross-examine the complainant, however, no opportunity had been granted to the petitioners and the evidence of the accused/petitioners had been closed on the same very day. He, thus, submits that in case the petitioners are not allowed to cross-examine the complainant, they would suffer an irreparable loss and injury. It is submitted that the impugned order being illegal, unjust and improper deserves to be set aside and the petitioners be granted one effective opportunity to cross-examine the complainant.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioners before this Court are the accused in the impugned complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Petitioners wanted to cross-examine the complainant as his evidence has been closed. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the petitioners one effective opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. Hence, the order dated 30.09.2025 is set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant on his appearance before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioners to cross-

examine the complainant, on the date fixed before trial Court.

5. The present petition is disposed of in above-said terms.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)

12.02.2026 JUDGE ps-I Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No