2026:UHC:2220 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/527/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Present C-528 application has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Haridwar in Criminal Complaint Case No. 271 of 2016 (New No.1088 of 2024), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereby the application moved by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the complainant for cross-examination has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was instituted by the complainant and the applicant was summoned vide order dated 24.06.2016. It is contended that subsequently a non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant on 29.04.2024 and thereafter the applicant surrendered before the court below on 18.07.2024 and was granted bail. Thereafter, the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed on 16.11.2024. According to the applicant, due to certain unavoidable circumstances he could not cross-examine the complainant 2026:UHC:2220 and the opportunity of cross- examination was closed by the trial court. It is further submitted that the applicant thereafter moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 01.12.2025 seeking recall of the complainant for cross-examination, but the same has been rejected by the impugned order dated 12.02.2026, which, according to the applicant, has caused serious prejudice to his defence and has resulted in denial of a fair opportunity of trial. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 5. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 12.02.2026, it transpires that the learned court below has taken into consideration the entire course of proceedings and the conduct of the applicant during trial. The record reflects that adequate opportunities were afforded to the applicant to cross- examine the complainant and to proceed with the defence; however, the applicant failed to avail the said opportunities. In such circumstances, the trial court closed the opportunity and thereafter rejected the application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by assigning reasons. 6. It is well settled that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and is to be exercised only when the court finds that recall or summoning of a witness is essential for 2026:UHC:2220 the just decision of the case. In the present case, the court below has exercised its discretion after considering the conduct of the applicant and the stage of the proceedings. No illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error is demonstrated in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under C-528. 7. Accordingly, the present C-528 application is devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. (Alok Mahra J.) 27.03.2026 Mamta MAMTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e43 0ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e68 911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.04.02 10:26:59 +05'30'