CRR No. 1491 of 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 122 Bhagat Singh Rajinder Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. petitioner/accused trial Court complaint bearing Bhagat Singh closed by Court order. 2. present are that the aforesaid complaint/application has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cross-examination of the respondent/complainant was to be conducted. However, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared for conducting remaining cross was sitting in the Court pr proxy counsel for the petitioner, the matter was fixed to be taken up at 02:00 CRR No. 1491 of 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Bhagat Singh Versus Rajinder Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA Mr. Deepender Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed petitioner/accused for setting aside the order dated trial Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad complaint bearing NACT No. 7035 of 2019, Bhagat Singh, whereby the cross-examination of the complainant has been closed by Court order. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present are that the aforesaid complaint/application has been filed by the spondent against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case was fixed for 07.05.2025 and t examination of the respondent/complainant was to be conducted. However, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared for conducting remaining cross-examination of the respondent, who is a senior citizen and was sitting in the Court premises since morning on that day. On the request of proxy counsel for the petitioner, the matter was fixed to be taken up at 02:00 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 1491 of 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.06.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Deepender Pratap Singh, Advocate petition has been filed by the for setting aside the order dated 07.05.2025, passed by the of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad in criminal NACT No. 7035 of 2019, titled as Rajinder Singh vs. examination of the complainant has been relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present are that the aforesaid complaint/application has been filed by the spondent against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable The case was fixed for 07.05.2025 and the remaining examination of the respondent/complainant was to be conducted. However, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared for conducting examination of the respondent, who is a senior citizen and emises since morning on that day. On the request of proxy counsel for the petitioner, the matter was fixed to be taken up at 02:00 -1- CRR No. 1491 of 2025 (O&M) 02.06.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent by the , passed by the in criminal Rajinder Singh vs. examination of the complainant has been relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present are that the aforesaid complaint/application has been filed by the spondent against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable he remaining examination of the respondent/complainant was to be conducted. However, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared for conducting examination of the respondent, who is a senior citizen and emises since morning on that day. On the request of proxy counsel for the petitioner, the matter was fixed to be taken up at 02:00 MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.06.02 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 1491 of 2025 (O&M) PM on that day but even then, none appeared for the said purpose. Consequently, the learned trial Court, while observing that pending for cross cost of Rs.1000/ fact not deposited by him, closed the cross respondent/complainant by pas 3. 07.05.2025, when the case was taken up by the learned trial Court, his counsel was engaged before some other Court and a request was made to take up the case at 02:00 PM complete the proceedings before other Court. Hence, he could not appear before the learned tr his behalf. It is further submitted that the delay occurred in cross-examination of the complainant was neither deliberate nor intentional but due to some unavoidable circumstances. It is further argued that settled law that the right given to an accused hyper-technical in order. Hence, i conclude the remaining cross 4. perused the material placed on record. 5. complaint filed by the respondent. the petitioner has not concluded the remaining cross CRR No. 1491 of 2025 (O&M) PM on that day but even then, none appeared for the said purpose. Consequently, the learned trial Court, while observing that pending for cross-examination of the complainant since 15.10.2024 and even cost of Rs.1000/- was imposed upon the accused on 21.04.2025, which was in fact not deposited by him, closed the cross respondent/complainant by passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner 07.05.2025, when the case was taken up by the learned trial Court, his counsel was engaged before some other Court and a request was made to take up the case at 02:00 PM. However, even by 02:00 PM, his counsel could not complete the proceedings before other Court. Hence, he could not appear before the learned trial Court, though a request for adjournment was made on his behalf. It is further submitted that the delay occurred in examination of the complainant was neither deliberate nor intentional but due to some unavoidable circumstances. It is further argued that settled law that the right to cross-examine the complainant given to an accused and the learned technical in closing the cross-examination of the complainant by Court Hence, it is urged that the petitioner conclude the remaining cross-examination of the complainant. I have heard learned counsel for th perused the material placed on record. The petitioner has been arrayed as complaint filed by the respondent. A perusal of the petitioner has not concluded the remaining cross PM on that day but even then, none appeared for the said purpose. Consequently, the learned trial Court, while observing that the case was examination of the complainant since 15.10.2024 and even was imposed upon the accused on 21.04.2025, which was in fact not deposited by him, closed the cross-examination of the sing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that 07.05.2025, when the case was taken up by the learned trial Court, his counsel was engaged before some other Court and a request was made to take up the . However, even by 02:00 PM, his counsel could not complete the proceedings before other Court. Hence, he could not appear , though a request for adjournment was made on his behalf. It is further submitted that the delay occurred in completing the examination of the complainant was neither deliberate nor intentional but due to some unavoidable circumstances. It is further argued that that examine the complainant is an important learned trial Court should not have been examination of the complainant by Court t is urged that the petitioner may be granted one opportunity t xamination of the complainant. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also been arrayed as accused in the aforementioned A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner has not concluded the remaining cross-examination of the -2- PM on that day but even then, none appeared for the said purpose. the case was examination of the complainant since 15.10.2024 and even was imposed upon the accused on 21.04.2025, which was in examination of the that on 07.05.2025, when the case was taken up by the learned trial Court, his counsel was engaged before some other Court and a request was made to take up the . However, even by 02:00 PM, his counsel could not complete the proceedings before other Court. Hence, he could not appear , though a request for adjournment was made on completing the examination of the complainant was neither deliberate nor intentional that it is is an important been examination of the complainant by Court may be granted one opportunity to and have also in the aforementioned the impugned order shows that examination of the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.06.02 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 1491 of 2025 (O&M) respondent/complainant, despite being given sufficient opportunity by the learned trial Court. However, at the same time, it is also to be seen that the petitioner has taken a specific plea that since his counsel was appearing in some other Court, he could not appear before the learned trial Court, though a request through a proxy counsel was made to take up the matter at 02:00 PM but even at that time, the cross-examination of the complainant. Of course, it seems that the petitioner has been careless in the entire process of cross it cannot be forgotten that it should be condemned unheard. The close to the truth as possible by obtaining proper proof of such facts which would lead to a just and correct decision of the case without giving a cross-examination of the complainant to make every possible effort, in the given fact situation of each case, to reach the truth so as to enable itself to arrive at a just decision for achieving the laudable object of doing substantial justice between the part conduct of the petitioner pursuing h which would considered 6. dated 07.05.2025 cross-examination of the complainant is closed CRR No. 1491 of 2025 (O&M) respondent/complainant, despite being given sufficient opportunity by the learned trial Court. However, at the same time, it is also to be seen that the etitioner has taken a specific plea that since his counsel was appearing in some other Court, he could not appear before the learned trial Court, though a request through a proxy counsel was made to take up the matter at 02:00 PM but even at that time, the situation remained the same, resulting into closure of xamination of the complainant. Of course, it seems that the petitioner has been careless in the entire process of cross it cannot be forgotten that it is well settled proposition of law that no party should be condemned unheard. The primary duty of the close to the truth as possible by obtaining proper proof of such facts which would lead to a just and correct decision of the case without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to complete the remaining examination of the complainant. The C to make every possible effort, in the given fact situation of each case, to reach the truth so as to enable itself to arrive at a just decision for achieving the laudable object of doing substantial justice between the part conduct of the petitioner is certainly indicative that his case. However, the negligence of the petitioner is not of the kind which would leave him with such consequence. considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order 07.05.2025 is hereby set aside to the extent whereby the remaining examination of the complainant is closed respondent/complainant, despite being given sufficient opportunity by the learned trial Court. However, at the same time, it is also to be seen that the etitioner has taken a specific plea that since his counsel was appearing in some other Court, he could not appear before the learned trial Court, though a request through a proxy counsel was made to take up the matter at 02:00 PM situation remained the same, resulting into closure of xamination of the complainant. Of course, it seems that the petitioner has been careless in the entire process of cross-examining the complainant but led proposition of law that no party primary duty of the Court is to reach as close to the truth as possible by obtaining proper proof of such facts which would lead to a just and correct decision of the case, which cannot be done n opportunity to the petitioner to complete the remaining The Courts are under legal obligation to make every possible effort, in the given fact situation of each case, to reach the truth so as to enable itself to arrive at a just decision for achieving the laudable object of doing substantial justice between the parties. The above s certainly indicative that he has been negligent case. However, the negligence of the petitioner is not of the kind with such consequence. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order to the extent whereby the remaining examination of the complainant is closed. The learned trial Court is -3- respondent/complainant, despite being given sufficient opportunity by the learned trial Court. However, at the same time, it is also to be seen that the etitioner has taken a specific plea that since his counsel was appearing in some other Court, he could not appear before the learned trial Court, though a request through a proxy counsel was made to take up the matter at 02:00 PM situation remained the same, resulting into closure of xamination of the complainant. Of course, it seems that the petitioner examining the complainant but led proposition of law that no party to reach as close to the truth as possible by obtaining proper proof of such facts which be done n opportunity to the petitioner to complete the remaining ourts are under legal obligation to make every possible effort, in the given fact situation of each case, to reach the truth so as to enable itself to arrive at a just decision for achieving the above been negligent in case. However, the negligence of the petitioner is not of the kind Hence, this Court is of the Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order to the extent whereby the remaining trial Court is MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.06.02 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No. 1491 of 2025 (O&M) directed to accord one more opportunity to the petitioner remaining cross 7. Rs. 10,000/ which shall be disbursed to the respondent/complainant on his appearance 02.06.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable CRR No. 1491 of 2025 (O&M) directed to accord one more opportunity to the petitioner remaining cross-examination of the respondent/complainant. This order, however, will be subject to payment of co ,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner which shall be disbursed to the respondent/complainant on his appearance 02.06.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable directed to accord one more opportunity to the petitioner conclude the examination of the respondent/complainant. This order, however, will be subject to payment of costs of deposited by the petitioner with the learned trial Court, which shall be disbursed to the respondent/complainant on his appearance. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No -4- conclude the sts of learned trial Court, . MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.06.02 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document