CRM-M-38061 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT 152 Pawan Kumar Ombir Balhara CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. 1. Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 11.05.2026 of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana, COMA-297 titled ‘Pawan Kumar v. Ombir 2. was complainant in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending before learned SDJM, Gohana. He filed an application under Section 311 and examine Bank Manager Branch, Mumbai with bank account statements of respondent/accused from August, 2016 to September, 2016 along with 38061-2026(O&M) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision Pawan Kumar V/S Ombir Balhara CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Mr. Yudhvir Dalal, Advocate, Ms. Sunaina, Advocate, Mr. Sahil Kumar Advocate and Mr. Anshul, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. Prayer in the petition under Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for quashing of 11.05.2026 of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana, 297-2018 dated 29.08.2018, under Sections 138/14 of NI Act, Pawan Kumar v. Ombir’. Learned counsel for the petitioner complainant in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending before learned SDJM, Gohana. He filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to summon and examine Bank Manager/official of ICICI B Branch, Mumbai with bank account statements of respondent/accused from August, 2016 to September, 2016 along with 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38061-2026(O&M) Date of decision: 16.07.2026 …Petitioner …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Mr. Sahil Kumar Advocate and for the petitioner. Prayer in the petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya is for quashing of order dated 11.05.2026 of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana, in 2018 dated 29.08.2018, under Sections 138/14 of NI Act, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner complainant in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending before learned SDJM, Gohana. He filed an Cr.P.C. seeking permission to summon official of ICICI Bank, MIG Colony Branch, Mumbai with bank account statements of the respondent/accused from August, 2016 to September, 2016 along with HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.17 19:26 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-38061 certificate under Section 65B of the Indi learned trial court erroneously declined. 3. Rs.60 lacs was adv paid back Rs.2,50,000/ cheque of Rs.28 lacs towards part payment of the loan was subsequently dishonoured. witness, filed 31.10.2017 and when a sum of Rs.4,50,000/ petitioner through cash deposit machine. by respondent and it was essential to bring on record bank statements of respondent for the month of illustrate true Court in ‘P. Chhaganalal Daga vs. M. Sanjay Shaw to Appeal (Crl.) No.2636 vs. State of Bihar & Anr.’ counsel submits that Section 311 Cr.P.C. widest power when the case was fixed for defence evidence and arguments. The power was absolute and application for just decision of the case. 4. conferred upon the Court by Section 311 Cr.P.C. At the same time, the power is to be exercised judiciously a 38061-2026(O&M) certificate under Section 65B of the Indi learned trial court erroneously declined. Learned counsel submits that although a total sum of Rs.60 lacs was advanced to the respondent as loan, Rs.2,50,000/- in the year 2017 through cheque of Rs.28 lacs towards part payment of the loan was subsequently dishonoured. Respondent filed his bank account statement only from 01.04.2017 to 31.10.2017 and withheld account statement pertai when a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was deposited in his account by the petitioner through cash deposit machine. These facts were suppressed by respondent and it was essential to bring on record bank statements of respondent for the month of August 2016 and September 2016 to true facts. Relying upon the decision P. Chhaganalal Daga vs. M. Sanjay Shaw to Appeal (Crl.) No.2636-2637/2001 and ‘Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar & Anr.’ SLP (Crl) No. counsel submits that Section 311 Cr.P.C. widest powers to summon any witness, at any stage of the case when the case was fixed for defence evidence and arguments. The power was absolute and it was the duty of the Court to allow the application for just decision of the case. There can be no denying that wide discretionary power is conferred upon the Court by Section 311 Cr.P.C. At the same time, the power is to be exercised judiciously and not 2 certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which Learned counsel submits that although a total sum of anced to the respondent as loan, respondent only through Bank and later, issued cheque of Rs.28 lacs towards part payment of the loan amount which Respondent, when appeared as defence bank account statement only from 01.04.2017 to account statement pertaining to the year 2016 was deposited in his account by the These facts were suppressed by respondent and it was essential to bring on record bank statements August 2016 and September 2016 to Relying upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme P. Chhaganalal Daga vs. M. Sanjay Shaw, Special Leave 2637/2001 and ‘Rajaram Prasad Yadav SLP (Crl) No.2400 of 2011, learned counsel submits that Section 311 Cr.P.C. invested the Court with at any stage of the case, even when the case was fixed for defence evidence and arguments. The it was the duty of the Court to allow the There can be no denying that wide discretionary power is conferred upon the Court by Section 311 Cr.P.C. At the same time, the nd not arbitrarily. The Court is HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.17 19:26 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-38061 required to be satisfied that the evidence sought to be led is essential in order to arrive at a just decision. 5. lacs was instituted in the year 2018. Complainant evidence. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded and when the case was appeared as his witness 01.04.2017 to 30.10.2017, when petitioner account through in the impugned order his fourth application, under Section 31 evidence and the matter was pending since 2018. For eight long years, complainant did not opt to bring on record Bank statement of the respondent, showing document sought to be brought on record and the summoned the light of presumption under Section 139 of the Instruments Act favour of the holder of 6. expeditious disposal and non examination of the witness cause any prejudice to the miscarriage of justice. Additional evidence cannot be the reason that the complainant respondent/accused 38061-2026(O&M) required to be satisfied that the evidence sought to be led is essential in order to arrive at a just decision. The case which pertains to dishonour of cheque of Rs.28 lacs was instituted in the year 2018. Complainant evidence. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also and when the case was fixed for defence evidence, accused appeared as his witness and brought on record his bank statement from 01.04.2017 to 30.10.2017, omitting the bank statement for year 2016 petitioner claims to have deposited a sum of Rs.4,50,000/ through cash deposit machine. Learned Trial Court has noticed in the impugned order that the application filed by the petitioner fourth application, under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence and the matter was pending since 2018. For eight long years, complainant did not opt to bring on record Bank statement of the , showing transfer of funds to the document sought to be brought on record and the cannot be termed essential for just decision of the case in the light of presumption under Section 139 of the Instruments Act favour of the holder of the cheque. The case, which is almost eight years old expeditious disposal and non examination of the witness cause any prejudice to the petitioner/ miscarriage of justice. Additional evidence cannot be the reason that the complainantss desires so or for the reason that the respondent/accused has withheld part of his statement of account. 3 required to be satisfied that the evidence sought to be led is essential in pertains to dishonour of cheque of Rs.28 lacs was instituted in the year 2018. Complainant led and concluded his evidence. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also fixed for defence evidence, accused and brought on record his bank statement from e bank statement for year 2016 claims to have deposited a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- in his cash deposit machine. Learned Trial Court has noticed application filed by the petitioner, was Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence and the matter was pending since 2018. For eight long years, complainant did not opt to bring on record Bank statement of the transfer of funds to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-. The document sought to be brought on record and the witness sought to be for just decision of the case in the light of presumption under Section 139 of the Instruments Act in which is almost eight years old, requires expeditious disposal and non examination of the witness would not petitioner/complainant, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Additional evidence cannot be allowed only for desires so or for the reason that the withheld part of his statement of account. HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.17 19:26 I agree to specified portions of this document CRM-M-38061 Invocation of the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in the case would not meet the ends of justice. learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana, thus interference by invoking inherent jurisdiction of the Court. 07. 08. of. 16.07.2026 Kapil 38061-2026(O&M) Invocation of the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in the case would the ends of justice. Impugned learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana, thus interference by invoking inherent jurisdiction of the Court. There is no merit in the petition Pending miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) .2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 4 Invocation of the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in the case would order dated 11.05.2026 of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gohana, thus, does not call interference by invoking inherent jurisdiction of the Court. There is no merit in the petition which stands dismissed. ous application, if any, stands disposed SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.17 19:26 I agree to specified portions of this document