2026:HHC:34419 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.697 of 2026 Date of Decision: 14.8.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Ashok Kamal ……...Petitioner Versus Narinder Paul …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Kamlesh Kumari, Advocate vice Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS') lays challenge to order dated 23.05.2026 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 664 of 2026, in Complaint No. 324 of 2022, titled as Narender v. Ashok, whereby prayer made by the petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') under Section 348 of the BNSS, for recalling and further cross-examination of the complainant, came to be dismissed. 2 2. Precisely the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as material adduced on record by the respective parties, are that respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that cheque bearing No. 000023 dated 03.01.2022, for a sum of Rs. 11,25,000/- issued by the accused in favour of the complainant towards discharge of lawful liability, on its presentation to the bank concerned, was returned dishonoured on account of "Account Closed". 3. Though the complainant served the accused with a legal notice calling upon him to make the payment good within the stipulated time, but since the needful was not done, complainant had no option, but to institute a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the competent Court of law. 4. Before the case could be disposed of, the accused filed an application under Section 348 of the BNSS (Annexure P-2), praying therein to recall the complainant for further cross-examination. It came to be averred in the application that the complainant could not be cross- examined properly and certain material facts pertaining to his narration with regard to cheque and accounts could not be put and suggested to the 3 complainant, which are vital and essential for just and proper adjudication of the matter in controversy. 5. Aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the accused came to be refuted by the respondent-complainant by filing reply (available at page 69 of the paper book), stating therein that the application has been filed solely with a view to delay the proceedings and to fill up the lacunas, which is not permissible under the law. 6. Learned Court below, taking note of the pleadings adduced on record by both the parties, dismissed the application vide impugned order. In the aforesaid background, the accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for setting aside the aforesaid order and to grant one opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis the reasoning assigned in the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same and no interference is called for. 8. Precisely, case of the petitioner-accused is that the complainant could not be cross-examined at length during his cross- examination, however, having carefully perused the cross-examination of the complainant (available at page-22 of the paper book), this Court finds 4 that the complainant has not only been cross-examined at length, rather appropriate questions in line with the defence, otherwise attempted to be put up by the accused, were put to him. The accused, during the cross- examination of the complainant, attempted to set up a case that he has already returned the cheque amount. Therefore, the essentiality of the questions proposed to be put to the complainant does not arise at this stage, as such, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned Senior Advocate representing the respondent-complainant that there is no requirement to re-cross-examine the complainant with respect to the source of income, which was never the defence of the petitioner-accused. Pattern of cross-examination conducted upon the complainant clearly reveals that the accused attempted to set up a case that the cheque amount stands repaid, as such, he ought to have led evidence on record to prove that though the cheque amount stands paid, yet the cheque, which was taken as a security, has been misused, however this Court finds that by way of filing an application under Section 348 of the BNSS, the petitioner-accused intended to re-examine the complainant on the pretext that he could not be asked relevant questions with regard to the source of income. Since the accused never raised a defence with regard to the source of income of the complainant, he otherwise cannot be permitted to lead 5 evidence on the same. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that the application under Section 348 of the BNSS came to be filed at the behest of the accused after recording his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC. No doubt, bare perusal of Section 348 of the BNSS reveals that prayer for recalling or re-examination of a witness can be made at any stage of the trial, but for that purpose, the essentiality of the evidence is to be adduced on record by recalling the witness. 9. Since, for the reasons discussed hereinabove, especially the lengthy cross-examination of the complainant, which otherwise appears to be in line with the defence attempted to be raised by the accused, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that re-examination of the complainant is essential for the decision of the case. 10. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit along with pending applications, if any. August 14, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge