IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.205 CRM-M-10433-2026 Decided on : 23.02.2026 M/s Ashok Kariyana Store ...... Petitioner Versus Pooran Singh ...... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ***

Present : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , J (ORAL)

1. By way of filing the instant petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.10.2024, passed by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kanina (Annexure P-3) vide which the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (now Section 348 of BNSS), for recalling CW1 Pooran Singh, for further cross-examination has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after closing of the evidence of the complainant-respondent, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner-accused that the earlier counsel did not cross-examine CW1 Pooran Singh in a proper manner, as such, he engaged the new counsel. Learned counsel further contends that the further cross-examination of the complainant was required on certain vital aspect as there was a recital on the cheque with regard to returning of amount of Rs.70,000/- which was written on the back side of the cheque and on the said fact and some other facts, he was not cross-examined properly and therefore, he filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-calling CW1 for further cross-examination which has wrongly been dismissed by the learned trial Court. He submits that the real motive of the petitioner is to bring true facts before the Court. He further submits that in case complainant Pooran Singh-CW1 is recalled for his further cross-examination, no prejudice will be caused to him and it is essential for the just and fair decision of the case. Therefore, learned counsel prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 11.10.2024 and allowing the application of the petitioner for further cross-examination of CW1 Pooran Singh.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. It is apparent from the record that the complainant has been examined and cross-examined at length. Now the case is at the stage of defence evidence and arguments. The emphasis of the petitioner for recalling CW1 for further cross-examination is that there is a change of counsel and some vital facts came to the knowledge of the new counsel which were not put up by the previous counsel and these are very much necessary to be answered by the said witness for the just and proper decision of the present case. However, there is no gain saying that the complainant has been examined and enough opportunities had been given to the accused- petitioner for cross-examining the complainant. It is settled proposition of law that statutory provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. are liberal in nature, however, neither the discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to delay the trial nor to fill up the lacunas in the case. Reliance is placed on V.N.Patil vs K.Niranjan Kumar and others, passed in SLP(Crl.)No.8965 of

2018 on 04.03.2021 and the relevant para of which reads thus:

“15. The object underlying Section 311 Cr.P.C. is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The significant expression that occurs is “at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code”. It is, however, to be borne in mind that the discretionary power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised judiciously, as it is always said “wider the power, greater is the necessity of caution while exercise of judicious discretion.”

5. To the same effect is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AG v. Shiv Kumar Yadav and another,