CRM-M-53655- 324 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Gagandeep Singh Swani M/s Kitty Industries Pvt. Ltd. CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Siddhant Jain, Mr. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. This is a petition order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana in complaint titled M/s Kitty Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s Swani Motor Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., whereby the applicatio under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to recall CW examination has been dismissed. 2. It is contended in the application moved by the accused/present petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. that du conducted on 10.09.2024, the said witness admitted that as per their record cheque No. 944770 dated 14.12.2019 had never been dishonoured and the concerned account was operative on that date. It is further submitted that cheque in question is 14.01.2019, however, due to a typographical/arithmetical -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Gagandeep Singh Swani VERSUS Industries Pvt. Ltd. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Siddhant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Viren Jain, Advocate for the respondent. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana in complaint titled M/s Kitty Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s Swani Motor Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., whereby the applicatio under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to recall CW examination has been dismissed. It is contended in the application moved by the accused/present petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. that during the cross conducted on 10.09.2024, the said witness admitted that as per their record cheque No. 944770 dated 14.12.2019 had never been dishonoured and the concerned account was operative on that date. It is further submitted that cheque in question is 14.01.2019, however, due to a typographical/arithmetical -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-53655-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 18.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Advocate for the petitioner. Viren Jain, Advocate for the respondent. under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana in complaint titled M/s Kitty Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s Swani Motor Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., whereby the application filed by the accused/petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to recall CW-3 for further cross It is contended in the application moved by the accused/present ring the cross-examination of CW conducted on 10.09.2024, the said witness admitted that as per their record cheque No. 944770 dated 14.12.2019 had never been dishonoured and the concerned account was operative on that date. It is further submitted that the actual date of the cheque in question is 14.01.2019, however, due to a typographical/arithmetical under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana in complaint titled M/s Kitty Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s Swani Motor n filed by the accused/petitioner 3 for further cross- It is contended in the application moved by the accused/present examination of CW-3 conducted on 10.09.2024, the said witness admitted that as per their record cheque No. 944770 dated 14.12.2019 had never been dishonoured and the concerned the actual date of the cheque in question is 14.01.2019, however, due to a typographical/arithmetical TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53655- error, the date was wrongly mentioned as 14.12.2019. It is pleaded that in order to clarify this discrepancy regarding the date of the cheque, recalling o further cross-examination is necessary. The application further states that such recall is essential for proper adjudication of the case and in the interest of justice, and if the same is not allowed, grave prejudice would be caused to the accus Accordingly, it is prayed that CW clarify the correct date of the cheque in question. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, has dismisse that sufficient opportunities had already been granted to the accused to cross examine CW-3 and the cross multiple dates. It was further observed that the complainant evidence and even the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had been recorded, and thereafter the matter was adjourned for defence evidence. The learned Magistrate noted that the present application had been filed at a highly belated stage after availing more than seven effective opportunities for defence evidence and even after final arguments had been addressed. It was also observed that the application appeared to have been moved only to fill up lacunae in the defence case, particularly cheque was put to CW allowing such an application at this stage would prejudice the complainant and defeat the mandate of speedy trial in proceeding Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, finding no valid justification for the delay or necessity of recall, the application was dismissed being devoid of merits. -2025 (O&M) error, the date was wrongly mentioned as 14.12.2019. It is pleaded that in order to clarify this discrepancy regarding the date of the cheque, recalling o examination is necessary. The application further states that such recall is essential for proper adjudication of the case and in the interest of justice, and if the same is not allowed, grave prejudice would be caused to the accus Accordingly, it is prayed that CW-3 be recalled for further cross clarify the correct date of the cheque in question. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, has dismisse that sufficient opportunities had already been granted to the accused to cross 3 and the cross-examination was in fact conducted at length on multiple dates. It was further observed that the complainant evidence and even the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had been recorded, and thereafter the matter was adjourned for defence evidence. The learned Magistrate noted that the present application had been filed at a highly e after availing more than seven effective opportunities for defence evidence and even after final arguments had been addressed. It was also observed that the application appeared to have been moved only to fill up lacunae in the defence case, particularly when no question regarding the correct date of the cheque was put to CW-3 during cross-examination. The Court further held that allowing such an application at this stage would prejudice the complainant and defeat the mandate of speedy trial in proceeding Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, finding no valid justification for the delay or necessity of recall, the application was dismissed being devoid of merits. -2- error, the date was wrongly mentioned as 14.12.2019. It is pleaded that in order to clarify this discrepancy regarding the date of the cheque, recalling of CW-3 for examination is necessary. The application further states that such recall is essential for proper adjudication of the case and in the interest of justice, and if the same is not allowed, grave prejudice would be caused to the accus 3 be recalled for further cross-examination to clarify the correct date of the cheque in question. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, has dismissed the application while observing that sufficient opportunities had already been granted to the accused to cross examination was in fact conducted at length on multiple dates. It was further observed that the complainant evidence stood closed and even the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had been recorded, and thereafter the matter was adjourned for defence evidence. The learned Magistrate noted that the present application had been filed at a highly e after availing more than seven effective opportunities for defence evidence and even after final arguments had been addressed. It was also observed that the application appeared to have been moved only to fill up lacunae in the when no question regarding the correct date of the examination. The Court further held that allowing such an application at this stage would prejudice the complainant and defeat the mandate of speedy trial in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, finding no valid justification for the delay or necessity of recall, the application was dismissed being devoid of merits. error, the date was wrongly mentioned as 14.12.2019. It is pleaded that in order to 3 for examination is necessary. The application further states that such recall is essential for proper adjudication of the case and in the interest of justice, and if the same is not allowed, grave prejudice would be caused to the accused. examination to Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, after hearing d the application while observing that sufficient opportunities had already been granted to the accused to cross- examination was in fact conducted at length on stood closed and even the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had been recorded, and thereafter the matter was adjourned for defence evidence. The learned Magistrate noted that the present application had been filed at a highly e after availing more than seven effective opportunities for defence evidence and even after final arguments had been addressed. It was also observed that the application appeared to have been moved only to fill up lacunae in the when no question regarding the correct date of the examination. The Court further held that allowing such an application at this stage would prejudice the complainant and s under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, finding no valid justification for the delay or necessity of recall, the application was dismissed being devoid of merits. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53655- it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned ord 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana is illegal, arbitrary and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, as the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved only for the limited purpose of clarifying an inadvertent typographical error regarding the date of the cheque in question. 4. It is further submitted that during the cross date of the cheque was mistakenly recorded as 14.12.2019 instead of the actual date i.e. 14.01.2019, adjudication of the case. It is argued that no new evidence was sought to be introduced and the application was bona fide in nature, aimed only at clarifying the record. The petitioner contends that de serious prejudice to the defence, whereas no prejudice would have been caused to the complainant if the application had been allowed. It is also urged that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the true scope a Cr.P.C. (para materia Section 348 BNSS), which empowers the Court to recall a witness at any stage if it is necessary for a just decision of the case. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has contended that th application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is false, frivolous and vexatious, having been filed with the sole intention to delay the proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted sufficient and numerous opportunities to cross at length. It is further argued that there is no necessity for recalling the said witness, and the present application has been moved only to fill up the lacunae in the defence after c -2025 (O&M) it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned ord 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana is illegal, arbitrary and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, as the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved only for the limited purpose of clarifying an inadvertent typographical error regarding the date of the cheque in question. It is further submitted that during the cross date of the cheque was mistakenly recorded as 14.12.2019 instead of the actual date i.e. 14.01.2019, and the recall of the witness was essential for proper adjudication of the case. It is argued that no new evidence was sought to be introduced and the application was bona fide in nature, aimed only at clarifying the record. The petitioner contends that denial of such an opportunity has caused serious prejudice to the defence, whereas no prejudice would have been caused to the complainant if the application had been allowed. It is also urged that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the true scope a Cr.P.C. (para materia Section 348 BNSS), which empowers the Court to recall a witness at any stage if it is necessary for a just decision of the case. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has contended that th application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is false, frivolous and vexatious, having been filed with the sole intention to delay the proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted sufficient and numerous ties to cross-examine CW-3 and, in fact, the witness was cross at length. It is further argued that there is no necessity for recalling the said witness, and the present application has been moved only to fill up the lacunae in the defence after completion of cross-examination. The respondent asserts that no -3- it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana is illegal, arbitrary and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, as the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved only for the limited purpose of clarifying an inadvertent typographical error regarding the date of the cheque in question. It is further submitted that during the cross-examination of CW-3, the date of the cheque was mistakenly recorded as 14.12.2019 instead of the actual and the recall of the witness was essential for proper adjudication of the case. It is argued that no new evidence was sought to be introduced and the application was bona fide in nature, aimed only at clarifying the nial of such an opportunity has caused serious prejudice to the defence, whereas no prejudice would have been caused to the complainant if the application had been allowed. It is also urged that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the true scope and object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. (para materia Section 348 BNSS), which empowers the Court to recall a witness at any stage if it is necessary for a just decision of the case. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has contended that th application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is false, frivolous and vexatious, having been filed with the sole intention to delay the proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted sufficient and numerous 3 and, in fact, the witness was cross-examined at length. It is further argued that there is no necessity for recalling the said witness, and the present application has been moved only to fill up the lacunae in examination. The respondent asserts that no er dated 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana is illegal, arbitrary and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, as the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved only for the limited purpose of clarifying an 3, the date of the cheque was mistakenly recorded as 14.12.2019 instead of the actual and the recall of the witness was essential for proper adjudication of the case. It is argued that no new evidence was sought to be introduced and the application was bona fide in nature, aimed only at clarifying the nial of such an opportunity has caused serious prejudice to the defence, whereas no prejudice would have been caused to the complainant if the application had been allowed. It is also urged that the nd object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. (para materia Section 348 BNSS), which empowers the Court to recall a Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has contended that the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is false, frivolous and vexatious, having been filed with the sole intention to delay the proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted sufficient and numerous examined at length. It is further argued that there is no necessity for recalling the said witness, and the present application has been moved only to fill up the lacunae in examination. The respondent asserts that no TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53655- typographical error, as alleged, exists and the plea taken by the petitioner is an afterthought and that learned JMICS has rightly dismissed the application. 5. I have heard learned counsel fo record carefully. 6. The present petition assails the order dated 30.08.2025 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for 7. It is well settled that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C., though wide, is discretionary and is to be exercised only when the evidence sought to be elicited is essential for the just decision of the case. The said provision cannot be permitted to be invoked for the purpose of filling up lacunae or to re after sufficient opportunities have already been availed. In the present case, the record reveals that CW petitioner was granted adequate and effective opportunities to confront the witness on all relevant aspects. The complainant evidence stood closed and even the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for de at a highly belated stage. The primary contention raised by the petitioner pertains to an alleged discrepancy regarding the date of the cheque. However, this Court finds no merit in the said conte exhibited on record as Ex.C the cheque bears the date 14.01.2019 and the cheque number is 944770. The documentary evidence, being primary in nature, is to cheque itself, bearing the date 14.01.2019, is part of the exhibited record, any statement made during the course of cross -2025 (O&M) typographical error, as alleged, exists and the plea taken by the petitioner is an afterthought and that learned JMICS has rightly dismissed the application. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. The present petition assails the order dated 30.08.2025 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling CW It is well settled that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C., though wide, is discretionary and is to be exercised only when the evidence sought to be elicited is essential for the just decision of the case. The said provision cannot be permitted to be invoked for the purpose of filling up lacunae or to re after sufficient opportunities have already been availed. In the present case, the record reveals that CW-3 was cross-examined at length on multiple dates and the er was granted adequate and effective opportunities to confront the witness on all relevant aspects. The complainant evidence stood closed and even the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for defence evidence. The present application has thus been filed at a highly belated stage. The primary contention raised by the petitioner pertains to an alleged discrepancy regarding the date of the cheque. However, this Court finds no merit in the said contention. The cheque in question already stands exhibited on record as Ex.C-1. A perusal of the said document clearly reflects that the cheque bears the date 14.01.2019 and the cheque number is 944770. The documentary evidence, being primary in nature, is to cheque itself, bearing the date 14.01.2019, is part of the exhibited record, any statement made during the course of cross-examination referring to a different date -4- typographical error, as alleged, exists and the plea taken by the petitioner is an afterthought and that learned JMICS has rightly dismissed the application. r the parties and have perused the The present petition assails the order dated 30.08.2025 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana dismissed the application filed by recalling CW-3. It is well settled that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C., though wide, is discretionary and is to be exercised only when the evidence sought to be elicited is essential for the just decision of the case. The said provision cannot be permitted to be invoked for the purpose of filling up lacunae or to re-open the case after sufficient opportunities have already been availed. In the present case, the examined at length on multiple dates and the er was granted adequate and effective opportunities to confront the witness on all relevant aspects. The complainant evidence stood closed and even the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter, the fence evidence. The present application has thus been filed at a highly belated stage. The primary contention raised by the petitioner pertains to an alleged discrepancy regarding the date of the cheque. However, this Court ntion. The cheque in question already stands 1. A perusal of the said document clearly reflects that the cheque bears the date 14.01.2019 and the cheque number is 944770. The documentary evidence, being primary in nature, is to be read as it stands. Once the cheque itself, bearing the date 14.01.2019, is part of the exhibited record, any examination referring to a different date typographical error, as alleged, exists and the plea taken by the petitioner is an r the parties and have perused the The present petition assails the order dated 30.08.2025 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana dismissed the application filed by It is well settled that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C., though wide, is discretionary and is to be exercised only when the evidence sought to be elicited is essential for the just decision of the case. The said provision cannot be open the case after sufficient opportunities have already been availed. In the present case, the examined at length on multiple dates and the er was granted adequate and effective opportunities to confront the witness on all relevant aspects. The complainant evidence stood closed and even the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter, the fence evidence. The present application has thus been filed at a highly belated stage. The primary contention raised by the petitioner pertains to an alleged discrepancy regarding the date of the cheque. However, this Court ntion. The cheque in question already stands 1. A perusal of the said document clearly reflects that the cheque bears the date 14.01.2019 and the cheque number is 944770. The be read as it stands. Once the cheque itself, bearing the date 14.01.2019, is part of the exhibited record, any examination referring to a different date TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53655- does not assume such significance so as to necessitate recal alleged discrepancy, even if assumed, does not go to the root of the matter so as to render the recall of CW the present application appears to be an attempt to re conclusion of cross Permitting such recall at this advanced stage would not only delay the proceedings but would also cause prejudice to the complainant, particularly in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which are intended to be decided expeditiously. 8. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that no sufficient cause has been shown for not raising the issue at the appropriate stage when the witnes was available for cross does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 9. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. 10. However, any observation an expression on the merits of the case during trial 11. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. March 18, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) does not assume such significance so as to necessitate recal alleged discrepancy, even if assumed, does not go to the root of the matter so as to render the recall of CW-3 essential for a just decision of the case. On the contrary, the present application appears to be an attempt to re conclusion of cross-examination and to improve upon the defence already taken. Permitting such recall at this advanced stage would not only delay the proceedings but would also cause prejudice to the complainant, particularly in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which are intended to be decided expeditiously. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that no sufficient cause has been shown for not raising the issue at the appropriate stage when the witnes was available for cross-examination. The reasoning assigned in the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. However, any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during trial All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- does not assume such significance so as to necessitate recall of the witness. The alleged discrepancy, even if assumed, does not go to the root of the matter so as to 3 essential for a just decision of the case. On the contrary, the present application appears to be an attempt to re-open the evidence after examination and to improve upon the defence already taken. Permitting such recall at this advanced stage would not only delay the proceedings but would also cause prejudice to the complainant, particularly in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which are intended to be The learned trial Court has rightly observed that no sufficient cause has been shown for not raising the issue at the appropriate stage when the witnes examination. The reasoning assigned in the impugned order Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during trial All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE l of the witness. The alleged discrepancy, even if assumed, does not go to the root of the matter so as to 3 essential for a just decision of the case. On the contrary, evidence after examination and to improve upon the defence already taken. Permitting such recall at this advanced stage would not only delay the proceedings but would also cause prejudice to the complainant, particularly in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which are intended to be The learned trial Court has rightly observed that no sufficient cause has been shown for not raising the issue at the appropriate stage when the witness examination. The reasoning assigned in the impugned order Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is made hereinabove shall not be construed as All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document