CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 123 Ravinder Kumar Jitin Neol CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking quashing of the order dated 24.0 learned Judicial Magistrae Ist Class, Abohar whereby the application filed by the petitioner (herein), under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. of 1973, for recalling of the complainant i.e. CW purpose of furth 2. impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record. The application of the petitioner for recalling the herein) for effective cross the Court below Leaned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that order is liable to be set settled principles of law that certain aspects can only be elicited in cross examination of the complainant. According to him, the petitioner -12354-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ravinder Kumar V/s n Neol CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Priyanshu Kamra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Setia, Advocate for the respondent. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking quashing of the order dated 24.0 learned Judicial Magistrae Ist Class, Abohar whereby the application filed by the petitioner (herein), under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. of 1973, for recalling of the complainant i.e. CW-1 Jitin Neol (respondent herein) for the purpose of further cross-examination has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record. The application of the petitioner for recalling the for effective cross-examination has erroneously the Court below, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. Leaned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that order is liable to be set-aside as the Court below has failed to appreciate the settled principles of law that certain aspects can only be elicited in cross examination of the complainant. According to him, the petitioner 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12354-2025 Date of decision: 04.09.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Priyanshu Kamra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Setia, Advocate for the respondent. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking quashing of the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrae Ist Class, Abohar whereby the application filed by the petitioner (herein), under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. of 1973, for 1 Jitin Neol (respondent herein) for the examination has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record. The application of the petitioner for recalling the complainant (respondent examination has erroneously been dismissed by which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. Leaned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the impugned aside as the Court below has failed to appreciate the settled principles of law that certain aspects can only be elicited in cross examination of the complainant. According to him, the petitioner-accused .2025 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of 2.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrae Ist Class, Abohar whereby the application filed by the petitioner (herein), under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. of 1973, for 1 Jitin Neol (respondent herein) for the Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order is contrary to both law and the material available on record. complainant (respondent dismissed by which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. impugned aside as the Court below has failed to appreciate the settled principles of law that certain aspects can only be elicited in cross- accused AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.05 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- has categoricall on 30.08.2023 and 04.09.2023, the complainant has himself admitted that specific cash entries in his account could be subjected to verification at the instance of the accused and this fact stood co testimonies of CW material coming on record, the Court below has erroneously concluded that the defence counsel has failed to explain why the complainant was not cross-examined Furthermore, the reason assigned by the Court below is perverse and contrary to the settled principles of natural justice as the opportunity to cross-examination is a valuable right enshrined under la contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic and devoid of merit and thus, deserves to be set complainant to conduct proper and effective cross interest of justice. O petition in hand 3. opposed the instant petition by arguing that the impugned order suffer from any illegality. petitioner on 30.08.2023 and 04.09.2023 so. According to learned counsel, the instant attempt to fill up lacunae in the defense and to protract the proceedings. Furthermore, defence evidence would cause unnecessary harassment -12354-2025 has categorically demonstrated that during the course of cross on 30.08.2023 and 04.09.2023, the complainant has himself admitted that specific cash entries in his account could be subjected to verification at the instance of the accused and this fact stood co testimonies of CW-3 and DW-6. According to learned counsel, despite such material coming on record, the Court below has erroneously concluded that the defence counsel has failed to explain why the complainant was not examined on the aforesaid points Furthermore, the reason assigned by the Court below is perverse and contrary to the settled principles of natural justice as the opportunity to examination is a valuable right enshrined under la contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic and devoid of merit and thus, deserves to be set-aside and prays for recall of the complainant to conduct proper and effective cross interest of justice. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the instant petition by arguing that the impugned order suffer from any illegality. Learned counsel has iterated petitioner had full opportunity to cross-examine the complainant on 30.08.2023 and 04.09.2023 respectively According to learned counsel, the instant attempt to fill up lacunae in the defense and to protract the proceedings. Furthermore, the recall of the complainant e evidence would cause unnecessary harassment 2 y demonstrated that during the course of cross-examination on 30.08.2023 and 04.09.2023, the complainant has himself admitted that specific cash entries in his account could be subjected to verification at the instance of the accused and this fact stood corroborated through the 6. According to learned counsel, despite such material coming on record, the Court below has erroneously concluded that the defence counsel has failed to explain why the complainant was not on the aforesaid points and dismissed the application Furthermore, the reason assigned by the Court below is perverse and contrary to the settled principles of natural justice as the opportunity to examination is a valuable right enshrined under law. It is further contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic and devoid aside and prays for recall of the complainant to conduct proper and effective cross-examination in the n the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the instant petition by arguing that the impugned order does not Learned counsel has iterated that the accused examine the complainant-respondent respectively but deliberately chose not to do According to learned counsel, the instant application is nothing but an attempt to fill up lacunae in the defense and to protract the proceedings. the recall of the complainant-respondent after completion of e evidence would cause unnecessary harassment and delay which is examination on 30.08.2023 and 04.09.2023, the complainant has himself admitted that specific cash entries in his account could be subjected to verification at the rroborated through the 6. According to learned counsel, despite such material coming on record, the Court below has erroneously concluded that the defence counsel has failed to explain why the complainant was not and dismissed the application. Furthermore, the reason assigned by the Court below is perverse and contrary to the settled principles of natural justice as the opportunity to It is further contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic and devoid aside and prays for recall of the examination in the n the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of counsel appearing for the respondent has does not that the accused- respondent chose not to do is nothing but an attempt to fill up lacunae in the defense and to protract the proceedings. after completion of which is AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.05 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- contrary to the l Instruments Act power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised judiciously, sparingly and only to prevent failure of justice not to affor negligent party. rightly dismissed the application in hand for recalling the complainant by a well-reasoned order and hence the dismissal of the instant petition is entreated for. 4. the paper- 5. this Court in case titled as another: 2024 NCPHHC 2 -12354-2025 contrary to the legislative intent of expeditious trial under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Learned counsel has further submitted that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised judiciously, sparingly and only to prevent failure of justice not to affor negligent party. Lastly, learned counsel has prayed that the Court below has rightly dismissed the application in hand for recalling the complainant by a reasoned order and hence the dismissal of the instant petition is ntreated for. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused -book. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in case titled as Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another: 2024 NCPHHC 24178; relevant whereof reads as under: “8.4 As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles emerge: (I) The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are as follows: (i) The prime factor for considering a plea under Section 311 of Cr,.P.C. is as to whether such evidence “ just decision of the case.” (ii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court even when cross-examination of a witness h Court order. Such exercise of power by the Court cannot be construed as the concerned Court recalling/reviewing its own order. (iii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Court to even allow further examination/cross-examination of a witness at instance of the prosecution/accused. (iv) A criminal Court is well within, its judicial discretion, to summon any person as a witness at any stage of proceedings/trial etc. till such Court is seized of the matter. (v) A criminal trial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on an application made by a party to lis or on its own volition. 3 egislative intent of expeditious trial under the Negotiable Learned counsel has further submitted that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised judiciously, sparingly and only to prevent failure of justice not to afford repeated opportunities to a Lastly, learned counsel has prayed that the Court below has rightly dismissed the application in hand for recalling the complainant by a reasoned order and hence the dismissal of the instant petition is I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and relevant whereof reads as under:- As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are as follows: for considering a plea under Section 311 of Cr,.P.C. is as to whether such evidence “appears to be essential to the Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court examination of a witness has earlier been foreclosed by a Court order. Such exercise of power by the Court cannot be construed as the concerned Court recalling/reviewing its own order. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Court to even examination of a witness at instance of A criminal Court is well within, its judicial discretion, to summon any person as a witness at any stage of proceedings/trial etc. till such A criminal trial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on an application made by a party to lis or on its own volition. egislative intent of expeditious trial under the Negotiable Learned counsel has further submitted that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised judiciously, sparingly d repeated opportunities to a Lastly, learned counsel has prayed that the Court below has rightly dismissed the application in hand for recalling the complainant by a reasoned order and hence the dismissal of the instant petition is I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court for considering a plea under Section 311 of appears to be essential to the Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court as earlier been foreclosed by a Court order. Such exercise of power by the Court cannot be construed as Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Court to even examination of a witness at instance of A criminal Court is well within, its judicial discretion, to summon any person as a witness at any stage of proceedings/trial etc. till such A criminal trial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.05 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 6. case in hand against the Instruments Act, 1881 Rs.15,00,000/ examined on more than 10 occasions and finally on 08.01.2024 the complainant closed his evidence. Cr.P.C. of the accused 06.03.2024 for the defence evidence of the accused. Thereafter, the accused petitioner examined 08 witnesses and finally when the list of witnesses was exhausted on 17.02.2025, the accused under Section 311 of the Code seeking r was examined over 02 years back, on the ground that certain material aspects the complainant was not cross opportunity be granted for conducting meaningful and effective cross examination of the com -12354-2025 (vi) Successive application(s) for summoning same witness for examination/re-examination is not debarred but such a p be dealt with exercising a higher degree of circumspection. (II) No straight jacket formulae can be enumerated regarding mode, manner and extent of exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by a criminal trial Court as every case has i It is neither possible nor pragmatic to lay down any such exhaustive guide-lines as every case is sui generis (III) Needless to say that exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by a criminal trial Court should be undertaken by according cogent and lucid reasons, in accordance with basic principles of our criminal jurisprudence, for such exercise of its power.” Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant factual matrix of the in hand is that the complainant-respondent has instituted a complaint against the petitioner-accused (herein) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, allegedly, on account of Rs.15,00,000/-. During the course of trial examined on more than 10 occasions and finally on 08.01.2024 the complainant closed his evidence. After that, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused-petitioner was recorded and the case was fixed for .2024 for the defence evidence of the accused. Thereafter, the accused petitioner examined 08 witnesses and finally when the list of witnesses was exhausted on 17.02.2025, the accused- under Section 311 of the Code seeking r was examined over 02 years back, on the ground that certain material aspects the complainant was not cross opportunity be granted for conducting meaningful and effective cross examination of the complainant. Upon issuance of notice, the 4 Successive application(s) for summoning same witness for examination is not debarred but such a plea deserves to be dealt with exercising a higher degree of circumspection. No straight jacket formulae can be enumerated regarding mode, manner and extent of exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by a criminal trial Court as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. It is neither possible nor pragmatic to lay down any such exhaustive sui generis in terms of factual conspectus. Needless to say that exercise of power under Section 311 of by a criminal trial Court should be undertaken by according cogent and lucid reasons, in accordance with basic principles of our criminal jurisprudence, for such exercise of its power.” details, the relevant factual matrix of the respondent has instituted a complaint accused (herein) under Section 138 of the Negotiable on account of dishonor of cheque of f trial, the complainant was cross examined on more than 10 occasions and finally on 08.01.2024 the After that, the statement under Section 313 petitioner was recorded and the case was fixed for .2024 for the defence evidence of the accused. Thereafter, the accused petitioner examined 08 witnesses and finally when the list of witnesses was -petitioner moved the application under Section 311 of the Code seeking recalling of the complainant, who was examined over 02 years back, on the ground that certain material aspects the complainant was not cross-examined properly and an opportunity be granted for conducting meaningful and effective cross plainant. Upon issuance of notice, the complainant Successive application(s) for summoning same witness for lea deserves to No straight jacket formulae can be enumerated regarding mode, manner and extent of exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by a ts own unique facts/circumstances. It is neither possible nor pragmatic to lay down any such exhaustive in terms of factual conspectus. Needless to say that exercise of power under Section 311 of by a criminal trial Court should be undertaken by according cogent and lucid reasons, in accordance with basic principles of our details, the relevant factual matrix of the respondent has instituted a complaint accused (herein) under Section 138 of the Negotiable cheque of , the complainant was cross- examined on more than 10 occasions and finally on 08.01.2024 the After that, the statement under Section 313 petitioner was recorded and the case was fixed for .2024 for the defence evidence of the accused. Thereafter, the accused- petitioner examined 08 witnesses and finally when the list of witnesses was petitioner moved the application ecalling of the complainant, who was examined over 02 years back, on the ground that certain material examined properly and an opportunity be granted for conducting meaningful and effective cross- complainant- AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.05 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- respondent resisted frivolous in nature and has been filed just to fill up the lacuna. 7. Court is whether, in the the interest of justice examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 8. examined extensively on 30.08.2023 and 04.09.2023 considered opinion of this Court, t that stage to put all relevant questions, alleged cash entries. No explanation accused-petitioner earlier cross aware of the nature of the dispute. learned counsel for the petitioner the testimony of DW considered opinion of this Court, t own witnesses as a ground to reopen the cross complainant is not to be exercised to fill up the lacunae in the defen in the considered opinion of this Court, the sought as a matter of right once and that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with circumspection to prevent injustice, not to complainant -12354-2025 respondent resisted the application by contending that the application is frivolous in nature and has been filed just to fill up the lacuna. The short question which whether, in the factual milieu of the case the interest of justice, to recall the complainant examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is not in dispute that the complainant has already been cross examined extensively on 30.08.2023 and 04.09.2023 considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner that stage to put all relevant questions, alleged cash entries. No explanation is coming forward on behalf of the petitioner as to why such questions were not asked during the earlier cross-examination of the complainant ware of the nature of the dispute. The contention learned counsel for the petitioner that the the testimony of DW-3 and DW-6, does not impress this Court. considered opinion of this Court, the defen own witnesses as a ground to reopen the cross complainant-respondent. The discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised to fill up the lacunae in the defen the considered opinion of this Court, the sought as a matter of right once an effective opportunity has been granted and that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with circumspection to prevent injustice, not to complainant-respondent has already undergone sufficient cross 5 by contending that the application is frivolous in nature and has been filed just to fill up the lacuna. which arises for rumination before t of the case in hand, it is necessary, to recall the complainant-respondent for further cross It is not in dispute that the complainant has already been cross examined extensively on 30.08.2023 and 04.09.2023 respectively. In the petitioner has adequate opportunity at including those pertaining to the is coming forward on behalf of the as to why such questions were not asked during the of the complainant, despite the defense being fully The contention raised on behalf of the facts has emerged only through does not impress this Court. In the he defence cannot be permitted to use its own witnesses as a ground to reopen the cross-examination of the he discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised to fill up the lacunae in the defence case. Furthermore, the considered opinion of this Court, the recall of witness cannot be effective opportunity has been granted and that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with circumspection to prevent injustice, not to prolong the trial. The has already undergone sufficient cross-examination by contending that the application is rumination before this , in for further cross- It is not in dispute that the complainant has already been cross- In the adequate opportunity at including those pertaining to the is coming forward on behalf of the as to why such questions were not asked during the , despite the defense being fully raised on behalf of through In the e cannot be permitted to use its examination of the he discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. . Furthermore, recall of witness cannot be effective opportunity has been granted and that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with The examination AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.05 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- and recalling result in unwarranted delay in disposal of the case Negotiable Instru 9. that the application and afterthought intended to delay the proceedings. opinion of this Court, the a demonstrate that further cross essential for a just decision of the case. filed at a belated stage, seeking recalling of the complainant wh examined more than was cross Section 311 Cr.P.C. is indeed wide and discretionary but such power must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner, especially in the absence of any cogent justification. 10. the impugned order passed by the Court below. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has appropriately dealt with the application in question by dismissing the same. 11. (i) Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, dismissal. -12354-2025 and recalling him again would not only cause undue harassment but also result in unwarranted delay in disposal of the case Negotiable Instruments Act. In the factual matrix of the case in hand, t that the application moved by the accused and afterthought intended to delay the proceedings. opinion of this Court, the accused-petitioner demonstrate that further cross-examination essential for a just decision of the case. filed at a belated stage, seeking recalling of the complainant wh examined more than 1½ years ago and during the said time the complainant was cross-examined on more than 10 occasions. Section 311 Cr.P.C. is indeed wide and discretionary but such power must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner, especially in the absence of any cogent justification. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Court below. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has appropriately dealt with the application in question by dismissing the same. In view of the above ratiocination The impugned order dated 24.02.2025 Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, does not call for any interference and deserves dismissal. Ordered accordingly. 6 him again would not only cause undue harassment but also result in unwarranted delay in disposal of the case in hand under the In the factual matrix of the case in hand, this Court is satisfied moved by the accused-petitioner is bereft of bona fide and afterthought intended to delay the proceedings. In the considered petitioner has not been able examination of the complainant-respondent essential for a just decision of the case. The instant application has been filed at a belated stage, seeking recalling of the complainant who was and during the said time the complainant examined on more than 10 occasions. Although, the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is indeed wide and discretionary but such power must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner, especially in the this Court does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Court below. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has appropriately dealt with the application in cination, it is directed as follows: 24.02.2025 passed by the Judicial does not call for any interference and deserves him again would not only cause undue harassment but also under the his Court is satisfied bona fide In the considered able to respondent is The instant application has been o was and during the said time the complainant Although, the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is indeed wide and discretionary but such power must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine manner, especially in the this Court does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Court below. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has appropriately dealt with the application in Judicial does not call for any interference and deserves AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.05 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- (ii) shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the Court proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced therefrom. (ii) September 04 Ajay -12354-2025 Any observations made and/or sub shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the Court proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced therefrom. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. September 04, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 7 Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the Court below shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No missions noted hereinabove shall proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.05 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document