2026:UHC:2227 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/525/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Rishabh Bisht, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Present C-528 application has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 2984 of 2022, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereby the application moved by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the complainant instituted the aforesaid complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, alleging that on account of cordial relations between the parties the applicant had borrowed certain money from the complainant and, in discharge of the said liability, issued two cheques in favour of the complainant; that, the said cheques, when presented for encashment, were dishonoured by the concerned bank with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient.” Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory legal notice to the applicant demanding payment of the cheque amount; however, despite service of the notice, the applicant failed to make 2026:UHC:2227 payment within the stipulated period, whereupon the complaint was filed and cognizance was taken by the learned trial court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that during the course of trial the learned trial court, vide order dated 22.08.2025, closed the opportunity of the applicant to lead defence evidence. According to the applicant, the said order has caused serious prejudice to him and has adversely affected his right to a fair trial. It is contended that the absence of the applicant on the said date was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to a bona fide confusion regarding the next date of hearing. 5. It is further submitted that in order to remedy the said situation, the applicant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the order dated 22.08.2025 and praying for permission to adduce defence evidence; however, the learned trial court rejected the said application vide impugned order dated 09.03.2026 on the ground that repeated opportunities had already been granted and that there is no provision for entertaining a second application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel contends that the impugned order has been passed in an erroneous and mechanical manner and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 2026:UHC:2227 6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record. 7. A perusal of the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 reveals that the learned court below has duly considered the factual background of the case as well as the conduct of the applicant during the course of trial. The record indicates that the applicant had earlier sought an adjournment on 17.04.2025 on the ground of ill-health, which was allowed and the matter was adjourned to 30.05.2025; however, on the said date the applicant again remained absent. Thereafter, the learned trial court granted several opportunities to the applicant to lead defence evidence and the matter was successively listed on 19.06.2025, 11.07.2025, 20.07.2025 and 04.09.2025, but the applicant failed to avail any of those opportunities and taking note of the aforesaid circumstances, the learned trial court closed the opportunity of the applicant to lead defence evidence. The subsequent application moved by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the said order was also rejected by the court below by assigning cogent reasons. 8. From the impugned order, it is evident that the learned court below has passed a reasoned and speaking order after considering the entire conduct of the applicant. The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and is to be exercised only when the summoning or 2026:UHC:2227 recall of a witness is necessary for the just decision of the case. In the present case, since sufficient opportunities had already been granted to the applicant to lead defence evidence but were not availed, no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error is made out in the impugned order so as to warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction under C-528. 9. Accordingly, the present C-528 application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. The C-528 application is, therefore, dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. (Alok Mahra J.) 27.03.2026 Mamta MA MTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f 244f3e584af1449e430ef900 bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b , postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1 d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8 b66dd26690a191648ab5d8 dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.04.02 10:23:00 +05'30'