1 2025:CGHC:60998 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1244 of 2024 Yogendra Singh S/o Jagdamba Singh Aged About 49 Years R/o H. No.2404, Ward No. 4 Chhawani Chowk, Bapu Nagar Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd Through Akash Tondon Aged 30 Years S/o G. Venkat Santosh Rao Branch Manager And Mukhtiyardharak Baranch Office- Shop No. 17, 2nd Floor, Chouhan State, Chandra Morya, Supela Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Petitioner in person. For Respondent-State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 15.12.2025 1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. The instant petition is preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the order dated 08.04.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as not maintainable. The said revision arose from the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the learned trial Court, by which the application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking permission for exhibiting document in question by re-calling the complainant for his cross examination has been rejected. 3. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition is that complainant- respondent No.2/company had filed a complaint case u/s 138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner/accused regarding dishonor of a cheque amount of Rs.2,90,901/- dated 01.03.2014 due to "insufficient amount". Based upon which, case was registered against the petitioner under the NI Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial Court alone is vested with the jurisdiction to appreciate the factual matrix of the case and to afford the accused a fair and reasonable opportunity 3 to adduce evidence, which has been unjustly denied. Both the Courts below have dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner on flimsy, arbitrary, and untenable grounds, thereby rendering the petitioner remediless. Such denial of opportunity amounts to an abuse of the process of law and has caused grave prejudice to the accused. The Courts below have failed to consider that the original (hypothecation) agreement is in the custody of the finance company and that the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability is a sine qua non for attracting the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The impugned orders of dismissal are bad in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside. The cheque in question was issued purely by way of security and cannot be misused for any other purpose. The true nature of the transaction can be ascertained only upon production of the original agreement, which is admittedly in the possession of the finance company. Hence, it is prayed that the original agreements bearing no.BHLA1010110003 and BΗΚΑΙ0301200002 executed between the petitioner and the finance company be called and opportunity of recalling of the witness be granted for the fair trial of the case. 5. Learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 oppose the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that both the Courts below have rightly rejected the application/petition of the petitioner as per relevant rules/law in 4 which interference is not required. 6. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the petition including the orders of Courts below. 7. Trial Court has vide power under Section 311 CrPC to examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case at any time. Section 311 of Cr.PC reads as under :- “311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. -- Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. 8. Considering facts of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, further that the petitioner seeks recall of the alleged witness for the purpose of substantiating his defence and placing the true and correct facts before the Court for the just and proper adjudication of the trial, further considering the Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is of the considered opinion that one opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner to recall the said witness in the interest of a fair trial. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions 5 Judge, Durg (C.G.), as well as the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the learned trial Court, are hereby set aside. The learned Court below is directed to summon and call for the original agreements bearing Nos. BHLA1010110003 and BΗΚΑΙ0301200002, alleged to have been executed between the petitioner and the respondent–Finance Company and to afford the petitioner one opportunity to recall the complainant/witness for the purpose of cross-examination, in the interest of justice and a fair trial. CC as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-