##PAGE1##

CRM-M-28820-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.141

CRM-M-28820-2026

Date of Decision: 21.05.2026

ANIL KUMAR DUA ...Petitioner

Versus

GURMEHAR SINGH ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present:- Mr. Saurabh Garg, Advocate

for the petitioner.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS

(earlier Section 482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing of impugned order dated

10.04.2026 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist

Class, Kaithal, whereby in complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act bearing No. NACT-241/2019 dated 12.02.2019 instituted by

the respondent, the application (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner for

recalling the complainant as witness and for permission to further cross-

examine the complainant/witness namely Gurmehar Singh (CW-2) by

confronting him with the call recording, has been dismissed.

2. In the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, an application for recalling of witness and permission to

further cross-examine the witness/complainant namely Gurmehar Singh

(CW-2) by putting up the call recording, was filed by the accused/present

petitioner. In the said application, it was averred that the statement of the

ANU

2026.05.22 15:43

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRM-M-28820-2026 2

complainant as CW-2 had already been recorded and thereafter the

complainant had closed his evidence. It was further pleaded that on

19.09.2025, the petitioner had a telephonic conversation with the

complainant, during which the complainant allegedly admitted that there

was no liability of the accused towards him and the said conversation was

recorded in the mobile phone of the petitioner. It was contended that since

the said call recording came into existence after the cross-examination of

CW-2 had already been conducted, the same could not be put to the

complainant earlier. Accordingly, the petitioner sought recalling of the

complainant for further cross-examination by confronting him with the said

call recording in order to prove the defence and to establish the falsity of the

allegations levelled in the complaint.

3. Upon notice, reply to the said application was filed by the

complainant/respondent, wherein preliminary objections were raised

regarding the maintainability of the application. It was contended that the

case was already fixed for defence evidence and the present application had

been filed at a highly belated stage after availing several opportunities, only

with a view to delay the trial proceedings. It was further submitted that the

complainant had already been duly cross-examined at length and no ground

existed for recalling him for further cross-examination. On merits, the

allegations regarding the alleged telephonic conversation and admission of

no liability were specifically denied. The complainant further alleged that

the petitioner was adopting false and frivolous pleas only to mislead the

Court and prolong the proceedings. Learned JMIC vide the impugned order

dismissed the aforesaid application by observing that the complainant had

ANU

2026.05.22 15:43

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRM-M-28820-2026 3

already been duly examined and extensively cross-examined by the accused

and thereafter the complainant had closed his evidence, while even the

statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had already been

recorded and the case was fixed for defence evidence. It was further

observed that the ground taken by the accused for recalling of the

complainant was based upon an alleged call recording which allegedly came

into existence after the cross-examination of the complainant, however,

merely on the basis of such subsequent development, the complainant could

not be recalled at such a belated stage, particularly when sufficient

opportunities had already been availed by the accused to cross-examine the

witness. The learned trial Court