CRM-M- IN 126 Dalbir Kau v. State of Pun CORAM: Present: AARADHN 1. NACT/119 Kaur’, has therein to q Chief Judi Section 348 to lead add have been i 2. be noticed h Shri Gian complaint -59592-2025 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGA ir Kaur of Punjab and another AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for Mr. Kamalpreet Bawal, DAG, **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) Petitioner, an accused T/1195/2022 dated 9.12.2022 titled , has filed the present petition unde in to quash order dated 19.8.2025 (A f Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran, v on 348 of BNSS (311 Cr.P.C.) filed ad additional evidence by placing on been issued to the petitioner, was allow Relevant facts, as emerging fro ticed hereinbelow:- Lakhbir Singh (respondent No ian Singh, resident of Bath Road, int under Section 138 of the Nego 1- PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRM-M-59592-2025 Date of decision: 31.10.2025 …Petitioner. …Respondents. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. ate for the petitioner. DAG, Punjab. sed in criminal complaint N titled ‘Lakbir Singh Rataul v. Dalb under Section 528 of BNSS, prayin 025 (Annexure P-7) passed by learne ran, vide which an application und filed by complainant-respondent No. ing on record the legal notice, said s allowed. ing from the documents on record, ma t No.2 in the present petition) son oad, Malia, Tarn Taran, instituted Negotiable Instruments Act (in sho .2025 ents. t No. . Dalbir praying learned n under nt No.2, , said to rd, may son of uted a short GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- “the NI A daughter A engaged in etc., were o availed loa amount, wi in discharg law issued Rs.1,50,000 095448 da Dalbir Ka presented endorseme respondent would be e again pres endorseme Complaina upon petiti amount wit P-1) was fi learned Ch summoned 138 of the bail and on During pen -59592-2025 -2 I Act”), against petitioner alleg ter Amandeep Kaur and son-in- d in the business of supplying dress ere on visiting terms with him. As the loan of Rs.5,50,000/- from him an t, within a period of three months. harge of legally enforceable debt, pe sued three cheques, amounting to 0,000/-, respectively. It was further dated 3.8.2022, amounting to R Kaur (present petitioner). Howe ted for encashment on 5.9.2022, ement “insufficient funds”, vide mem dent No.2 again approached petitio be encashed after one month. Rel presented on 15.10.2022, but th ement “account blocked”, vid ainant next alleged that a legal not etitioner/accused through registere t within 15 days. Since needful was as filed on 9.12.2022. On the basis of preliminary d Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn T ned petitioner for commission of an the NI Act. On 19.7.2023, petitione d on the same day, a notice of accu pendency of the case, an applicatio 2- lleging therein that petitioner, h -law Lakhwinder Singh, who a ress material, selling readymade sui hey were in dire need of funds, the m and had assured to return the sa ths. Complainant further alleged th t, petitioner, her daughter and son- to Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- an ther averred that cheque bearing N Rs.2,00,000/- was issued by Sm owever, when the said cheque wa 22, the same was returned with th memo dated 6.9.2022. Complainan etitioner who assured that the chequ Relying on her version, cheque wa t the same was returned with th vide memo dated 17.10.202 l notice dated 14.11.2022 was serve stered post requesting her to pay th was not done, a complaint (Annexu inary evidence led by complainan rn Taran vide order dated 16.3.202 f an offence punishable under Sectio tioner was extended the concession accusation was also served upon he ation dated 27.10.2023 was moved b r, her o are e suits s, they e said d that -in- and g No. Smt. e was th the inant- heque e was th the .2022. served ay the exure inant, .2023, ection ion of n her. ved by GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- complainan the legal n Smt. Dalbi inadvertent petitioner, the counse petitioner. “Detailed r on the grou no legal n envelope t Lakhwinde mentioned. was never cheque had was prayed cause of ac learned tri P-7) allow be placed o just decisio accused, above, agg 3 was ever complainan -59592-2025 -3 inant seeking permission of the Co al notice said to have been served albir Singh. The ground taken i rtently a copy of the legal notice s ner, i.e. Shri Lakhwinder Singh was unsel instead of a copy of the lega ner. Notice of the said applicati iled reply was filed by the present pe ground of it being not maintainable al notice was ever issued to her, t pe through registered AD bore th inder Singh and not her name, th ned. On merits, the plea taken by th ver engaged in the business of sellin had ever been issued by her, neithe rayed that the application having b of action, deserves dismissal. After hearing the submission d trial Court in terms of impugned llowed the said application on the g ed on record by way of additional e cision of the case, moreover, no p d, nor the same would tantamoun aggrieved of the said order, present Learned counsel for the petiti ever issued or served upon petitio lainant-respondent No.2 that due to er 3- e Court to place on record, a copy rved upon present petitioner, namel en in the said application was th ce served upon the son-in-law of th was placed on record by the Clerk legal notice served upon the prese ication was given to the petitione nt petitioner opposing the applicatio able.” It was further pointed out th , the notice received by her in a e the name of her son-in-law Sh though her address was correct by the petitioner-accused was that sh selling dress material, clothes etc., n either she had received any notice. ng been filed without any merit an ssions of both the learned counse ned order dated 19.8.2025 (Annexu the ground that legal notice sought al evidence, will help the Court in no prejudice would be caused to th ount to filling lacunae. As notice sent petition has been filed. petitioner submits that no legal notic petitioner. The story concocted b e to error on the part of the Clerk of th opy of amely, s that of the lerk of resent tioner. ation, ut that in an Shri rrectly at she tc., no ice. It it and unsel, exure ght to the to the oticed l notice cted by rk of the GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- counsel, co along with the affidav not append moving the petitioner, o has also adv 4. the docume 5. recapitulate inquiry, tria recall and any docum the case. Hon’ble Su “Zah Raja Nata It has been be exercise before it al power shou side. 6. the copy of -59592-2025 -4 sel, copy of legal notice served upon with the present complaint, is purely ffidavit of the Clerk of the counsel re ppended along with the application. the application at a belated stage ioner, on the face of it, tantamounts to adversely affected the rights of pet I have heard learned counsel ocuments on record. Before proceeding further, it itulate the law on the subject in issue Section 311 Cr.P.C. empow iry, trial or other proceeding to summ l and re-examine any person already ocument, if his evidence appears to b The scope of Section 311 Cr.P ble Supreme Court in: Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of B Natasha Singh v. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC s been consistently held that the powe xercised to prevent failure of justice re it all relevant evidence necessary f r should not be used to fill up lacunae Reverting back to the facts of opy of the complaint (Annexure P-1) 4- upon Lakhwinder Singh was appende urely an after thought. Moreover, eve nsel representing complainant was als ation. This conduct of complainant, stage, as per learned counsel for th to filing up lacunae in his case an petitioner-accused. ounsel for the parties and have peruse it would be appropriate to brief issue. mpowers the Court at any stage o summon any person as a witness, or lready examined, or to place on recor rs to be essential to the just decision o 1 Cr.P.C. has been explained by th State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374, of Bihar, (2013) 14 SCC 461, and SCC 741 power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. mu stice and to ensure that the Court ha ssary for a just decision. However, th acunae or to cause prejudice to the oth cts of the case in hand, a bare perusal o 1) reveals that as per case set up b ppended even as also inant, in for the and perused briefly tage of ss, or to record ision of by the 374, and .C. must ourt has ver, the he other rusal of et up by GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- complainan law, had a 2021. The issued thr Rs.1,50,000 presented t claims that upon the a Code of Cr alleged by the counsel law of peti complaint petitioner). hand, filin gaps/loopho It only appe to other co file. Furthe specific sta her address whether the decided on by learned cross-exam the questio -59592-2025 -5 lainant Lakhbir Singh, petitioner/accu had availed a loan facility of Rs.5,5 . They had promised to return the d three cheques amounting to R ,50,000/-, respectively. All these che nted to the concerned Bank, were di s that legal notice dated 14.11.2022, th the accused. Necessity for filing a of Criminal Procedure (Section 348 ed by complainant, due to sheer negli ounsel representing him, copy of lega of petitioner, Shri Lakhwinder Singh laint instead of legal notice issued ioner). When appreciated in the light , filing of this application, does /loopholes. No new facts were alleged ly appears that on account of clerical e her co-accused who is the son-in-law Further, while opposing the applicatio stand that the envelope received th ddress but the name of her son-in-law her the legal notice was actually serv ed on the basis of evidence adduced. arned trial Court, petitioner-accused w examine complainant on each and question of her rights being prejud 5- er/accused, her daughter and her son- Rs.5,50,000/- from him in Septembe n the amount and in lieu thereof, ha to Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- an se cheques, as per complainant, whe ere dishonoured. Complainant furth 022, through registered post was serve iling application under Section 311 o n 348 of BNSS) arose to him when a r negligence on the part of the Clerk o of legal notice served upon the son- Singh, was appended with the prese issued to Smt. Dalbir Kaur (prese e light of factual matrix of the case does not tantamount to filling th lleged to be introduced by complainan rical error, the copy of legal notice se law of petitioner was placed on cas lication, petitioner-accused had taken ved through registered post though bo law was mentioned. Question as y served upon the petitioner, would b ed. As has been rightly pointed o used will be afforded an opportunity and every aspect of the case and, thu prejudicially affected, does not aris -in- tember, had and t, when t further s served 311 of when as Clerk of -in- present (present case in ing the lainant. tice sent on case taken a gh bore on as to ould be nted out unity to d, thus, rise. GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Keeping in Procedure, adduced on of the cas controversy 7. indicating t in issue and petitioner reasoned a interference 8. with the set 9. directed to October 31 gbs -59592-2025 -6 ing in view the scope and ambit of S edure, this Court is also of the opinio ced on the case file by complainant is e case and would help the trial C oversy between the parties. In the present case, the learned ating that the proposed evidence is ma and that the opportunity to cross- ioner. This Court finds that the or ned and does not suffer from any p ference under Section 528 of BNSS. The discretion exercised by t the settled principles of law governing Consequently, this petition i ted to proceed with the trial expeditiou ber 31, 2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 6- it of Section 311 of Code of Crimin opinion that the evidence sought to b ant is very material for the just decisio trial Court to effectively decide th earned Trial Court has recorded reason is material for adjudication of the poi -examine would be available to th the order of the Trial Court is we any perversity or illegality warrantin d by the Trial Court is in consonanc erning Section 311 Cr.P.C. ition is dismissed. The Trial Court editiously in accordance with law. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No riminal ht to be decision ide the reasons point le to the is well rranting sonance ourt is NEY) GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.10 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document