[2025:JHHC:20574] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 1507 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1507 of 2025 Hitesh Kumar R.Jain @ Hitesh Jain, aged about 34 years, son of Rajendra Kumar Jain, resident of 9, Pipeline, P.O. & P.S. – Vijay Nagar, District- Bangalore, State- Karnataka ...... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sripati Singh (since deceased) through his son Gaurav Singh, resident of Belwatikar, Daltonganj (Medininagar), P.O.- Daltonganj, P.S.- Town, Dist.- Palamau (Jharkhand) ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Adv. Mr. Amartya Choubey, Adv. Mr. Arpan Manjash Ekka, Adv. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra , Addl. PP For the opp. party no.2 : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary ,Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwari ,Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit. 3. Keep the same in the record. In the supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has enclosed the deposition of CW-1, 2 & 3. 4. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to quash the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau in connection with Complaint Case No.1839 of 2015 whereby and where under the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected. [2025:JHHC:20574] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 1507 of 2025 5. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is an accused of the said Complaint Case No. 1839 of 2015. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Complaint Case No. 1839 of 2015, the evidence of the complainant has been closed and the statement under Section 351 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been recorded. The complainant has examined four witnesses who have been cross-examined and discharged; as is evident from the order dated 21.05.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court in connection with Complaint Case No. 1839 of 2015 by filing a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. Earlier the petitioner also filed a petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer of recalling the witnesses of the complainant for their further cross-examination and the same was numbered as Cr.M.P. no. 2988 of 2024 but the Cr.M.P. No. 2988 of 2024 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the trial court. 7. Though it has not been specifically mentioned but apparently the liberty was taken to enumerate the questions intended to be asked to the witnesses sought to be recalled for their further cross- examination. It was contended before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau, that the Advocate on record is based on Bangalore and owing to his pre-fixed professional commitment, he could not appear before the trial court for cross- examination of the witnesses. The witnesses of the complainant were cross-examined by the assisting Advocate but he lost sight of certain points emanating from the documents placed by the complainant. Hence, it was contended before the learned Trial Court that the CW-1 to 4 be recalled for their cross-examination. The prayer of the petitioner, who was accused person of the said case was objected to by the complainant, who is the opposite party No.2 of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. Complainant- opposite party No.2 submitted before the trial court that sufficient opportunity for cross-examination of material witnesses has [2025:JHHC:20574] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1507 of 2025 already been given to the accused-person of the case and the contention of the accused petitioner who intends to confront some documents to the witnesses of the complainant, who have already been discharged, by way of their cross-examination, is a routine delaying tactics; as the petition has been filed at a belated stage, when the case is fixed for statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 31.03.2024 but thereafter also, the petitioner sought time on one pretext or another for five consecutive dates. It is then submitted by the Complainant- opposite party No.2 , before the trial court, that since the CW-2 namely Khushbu Singh is residing at Texas in the United States of America and only in order to harass the complainant-opposite party No.2, this petition to recall the witness for further cross examination has been made. 8. The learned Trial Court considered that the order-sheet of the case reveals that the petitioner has been adopting delaying tactics and on each and every date, the accused person is changing the statement made before it. The learned Trial Court considered that because of such dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioner, the bail granted to him was cancelled and subsequently, he had to surrender and remain in custody. The learned Trial Court took note of the conduct of the petitioner in delaying the cross- examination of the CW-1 as well as CW-2 & 3. The learned Trial Court has also observed that though the Examination-in-Chief of the CW-4 was filed in shape of affidavit but neither has he been examined nor he was tendered for cross-examination by the complainant nor the CW-4 appeared before the trial court. The evidence of the complainant was closed on 16.02.2024. The case was fixed for the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the accused petitioner but the accused petitioner failed to appear for his statement on 06.04.2024. Instead on 27.06.2024, the accused filed a petition under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling the witnesses to cross- examine them. The learned Trial Court also considered the [2025:JHHC:20574] 4 Cr.M.P. No. 1507 of 2025 conduct of the accused-petitioner in completing the cross- examination of the CW-1 after cross-examining the witness, on three different dates. CW-2 was cross examined on two different dates. Learned Trial Court considered that judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ram Mehar & Others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 762 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the ground that the earlier counsel, who was engaged by the defendant had not put some question or failed to put questions and give certain suggestions where recalling of witnesses is in dubitably, cannot form the foundation for recalling such witnesses, as there would be possibility of a retrial. The learned Trial Court also considered that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Another vs. State of Gujarat & Others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 158 where the exercise of power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was held to be resorted only with the object of finding the truth. Learned Trial Court considered that the power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be invoked only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reason and the same must be exercised with care caution and circumspection. Learned Trial Court then considered that the CW-2 resides in United States of America and for her cross-examination, she has to come all the way from the United State of America. Learned Trial Court then considered that sufficient opportunity has already been granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. The defence of the petitioner-accused can be proved through his defence evidence by producing witnesses and documents. The learned Trial Court then considered that the criminal proceeding before it in Complaint Case No. 1839 of 2015 is a summary proceeding but in the same, long delay has already been caused and rejected the petition filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the complainant. [2025:JHHC:20574] 5 Cr.M.P. No. 1507 of 2025 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused petitioner is all along disputing the agreement dated 13.08.2014. Mr. K.R. Keshav Murthy, the learned Advocate on record represented the accused petitioner right from the inception of the case ever since 12.04.2017. It is then submitted that the total six cheque leaves of the borrower have been provided for the security of the lender, against two crores including Rs.50,00,000/- which is the subject matter of this cheque. It is then submitted that the complainant has improvised hypothesis of cash transaction with the oblique intention to bring the figure to rupees two crores. It is also submitted that Examination in-Chief in shape of affidavit of CW-1 namely Gaurav Singh was filed before the trial court on 28.07.2023. Petitioner filed an application under Section 231(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 242(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking leave of the trial court to cross-examine Khushboo Singh at the first instance, since she is the material witness, as made out in the complaint; whereas CW-1 Gaurav Singh is prosecuting the case after death of his father Shri Sripati Singh but the same was rejected on 13.09.2023. Mr. K.R. Keshav Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused in the record was pre-occupied with the cases before the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chikkamagaluru as Special Public Prosecutor and there were genuine reasons for Mr. K.R. Keshav Murthy for not appearing before the learned trial court to assist the said court in cross-examination of the witnesses. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 21.05.2025 in most mechanical manner without appreciating the ground taken in that petition. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 10. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that under Section 311 of the Code of [2025:JHHC:20574] 6 Cr.M.P. No. 1507 of 2025 Criminal Procedure, a witness can be recalled for cross- examination under two circumstances:- (i) Court can summon any person as a witness or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined, if such person is present in the court; and (ii) Secondly, if the witness appears to be essential for the just decision of the case, then the court has to recall such witness for cross-examination. It is next submitted that all the three witnesses have been examined and cross-examined at length. It is then submitted that as has rightly been observed by the learned trial court, that the accused person can put forth evidence in support of his defence. Hence, it is submitted that as the recalling of the witness is not required for the just decision of the case rather the same has been made with the ulterior motive to delay the disposal of the case; about which there is detailed description made by the trial court, hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 11. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2013) 14 SCC 461 considered the occasions when re-examination of the witnesses is permissible. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that a witness can be recalled by a court if the evidence sought to be brought on record through the witnesses concerned, appears to the court to be essential for the just decision of the case. In the case of Ratanlal vs. Prahlad Jat & Others reported in (2017) 9 SCC 340, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be exercised [2025:JHHC:20574] 7 Cr.M.P. No. 1507 of 2025 with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only for strong and valid reasons. 12. Now coming to the facts of the case, the CW-1 Gaurav Singh has deposed on behalf of the complainant, as his father who was original complainant, died. He has been cross-examination at length consisting of 34 paragraphs on three different dates i.e. on 28.07.2023, 06.10.2023 and 06.12.2023. The CW-2 namely Khushboo Singh who is stated to be the material witness by the petitioner herein, has also been cross-examined at length on two different dates spanning over 32 paragraphs starting from para-12 to para-43. The CW-3 namely Ravi Kumar Singh has been cross- examined, as is evident from para-9 to para-19 and the CW-4 was not tendered for examination in chief or cross-examination and as is evident, his examination in chief in shape of affidavit, has not been considered by the trial court. 13. The questions sought to be put to the witnesses as has been mentioned in the petition which was rejected by the learned that trial court includes several questions relating to the instructions given by the witnesses to their lawyer. It is needless to mention that the communication between a client and a lawyer is a privileged communication and the same cannot be forced to be disclosed by any person, in any court of law. The petitioner could not cite any single question, sought to be asked to the witnesses, on their further cross examination on recall, which is essential for the just decision of the case. 14. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the three witnesses have been cross-examined at length. The defence, if any, intended to be put forth by the accused petitioner can be done by way of examination defence witnesses, as has rightly been observed by the learned trial court. Keeping in view the conduct of the accused petitioner in delaying the disposal of a case of summary nature, filed for the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which has also been discussed in detail in the impugned order by the learned Judicial [2025:JHHC:20574] 8 Cr.M.P. No. 1507 of 2025 Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj has not committed any illegality in passing the order dated 21.05.2025 in M.C.A. No. 6067 of 2024 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1839 of 2015 warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. 15. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 15th July, 2025 Smita /AFR