IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-5364-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.04.2026 Sarwan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Mohan Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. S. S. Kainth, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for respondent No. 1.

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab for respondent No. 2.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 19.01.2019 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib in Criminal Revision No. 597 of 2018, titled as Mohan Singh vs. Sarwan Singh, whereby while allowing the petition, the order dated 12.03.2018, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib in Criminal Complaint bearing NACT No. 79 of 2015, titled as Mohan Singh vs. Sarwan Singh, had been set aside and the application filed by the respondent/complainant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was allowed.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) has filed the aforesaid complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner on the allegations that in order to discharge his legal enforceable debt, the petitioner had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs, which had been dishonoured on presentation. He even failed to make the payment of the cheque amount despite issuance of legal notice, thereby compelling the complainant to file the aforementioned complaint. The petitioner has been summoned as an accused and is facing trial. After cross- examination of the petitioner, an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant making prayer for granting him an opportunity to re- examine himself and also to produce some witnesses including a fingerprint expert and some bank officials for the purpose of establishing his financial capacity and liability of the petitioner towards him. The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 12.03.2018, dismissed the said application by observing that the complainant intended to reopen the entire case after the defence of the petitioner was unfolded. It was also observed that he had already been put to cross-examination and, therefore, the said application did not deserve to be allowed.

3. As revealed from the record, the complainant filed a revision petition against the order dated 12.03.2018 and the learned revisional Court allowed the said petition, vide impugned order dated 19.01.2019 by imposing a rider that the complainant would be allowed to avail only three effective opportunities within a gap of not more than a period of 15 days to lead and conclude his entire evidence and equal number of opportunities would be granted to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 19.01.2019 is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the learned revisional Court did not consider and appreciate the fact that the complainant had already been examined in detail and further cross-examined at the time of appearing as a witness. While cross- examining him, the entire defence of the petitioner had been disclosed to him. To fill up the lacunas in the case, he could not be allowed to re-examine himself or to produce additional evidence. It is also argued that no ground for summoning the other witnesses as mentioned in the application was made out. By doing so, the learned revisional Court has caused great prejudice to the case of the petitioner. The proposed evidence was not at all required for just decision of the case. The order passed by the learned revisional Court is a cryptic and non-speaking order, whereas the order passed by the learned Magistrate was well reasoned and required no interference. It is, therefore, arg