CRM-M-32687-2026 (O&M) -1- CNR No. PHHC010969102026 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 178 CRM-M-32687-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.07.2026 Lakha Singh ...Petitioner Versus Rajesh Khurania ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. S. S. Momi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nitin Bhanwala, Advocate for the respondent. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in the present petition has been made under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.04.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal in Complaint No.1293 of 2020 titled "Rajesh Khurania Vs. Lakha Singh", whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 247 read with Section 243 Cr.P.C. (Section 263 BNSS) for summoning and examining defence witnesses along with the relevant record was dismissed. A further prayer has also been made for grant of appropriate directions enabling the petitioner to lead the said defence evidence. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the respondent has filed the aforementioned complaint alleging that the petitioner had borrowed an amount of ₹5,00,000/- from him and in discharge of the said liability, he had issued cheque No.679929 dated 08.06.2020 MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.20 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32687-2026 (O&M) -2- CNR No. PHHC010969102026 for an amount of ₹4,50,000/-. Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured with the remarks "Signature Differ" and "Funds Insufficient". After issuance of statutory notice and non-payment of the cheque amount, the complaint was filed before the learned trial Court. The petitioner appeared before the trial Court and contested the complaint. During the cross-examination of the complainant, certain admissions were allegedly made to the effect that the complainant's father-in-law was running M/s Tara Chand Prem Chand Commission Agency at Grain Market, Kaithal and that the petitioner had been dealing with the said commission agency for several years. Thereafter, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner took a specific defence that the cheque in question had not been issued towards any liability owed to the complainant but had been handed over to Jagdish Rai, proprietor of the aforesaid commission agency, in connection with their business transactions. In order to substantiate the said defence, the petitioner moved an application seeking permission to summon the Munim/Partner of M/s Tara Chand Prem Chand along with the relevant business records including Forms H-1, Forms J, daily books, balance sheets, Bahi Rokar and certain records from the Market Committee, Kaithal. The learned trial Court, however, dismissed the said application vide order dated 17.04.2026 holding that the proposed evidence was neither relevant nor necessary. Aggrieved thereof, the present petition has been filed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the defence of the petitioner has been that the cheque in question had been handed over to M/s Tara Chand Prem Chand Commission Agency during the course of business dealings and not MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.20 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32687-2026 (O&M) -3- CNR No. PHHC010969102026 towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt owed to the complainant. It is argued that the complainant himself, during cross-examination, admitted that his father-in-law was the proprietor of the aforesaid commission agency and further admitted that the petitioner had been a regular customer of the said firm for several years. The petitioner also reiterated the same defence in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the proposed witnesses and the record sought to be summoned have a direct bearing on the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner. An accused has a valuable statutory right to lead defence evidence and the trial Court ought not to reject such a request unless the evidence sought to be produced is wholly irrelevant or intended merely to delay the proceedings. The dismissal of the application has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner by depriving him of an effective opportunity to rebut the statutory presumptions available under Sections 118 and 139 of the N. I. Act. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioner as he failed to establish the relevance and necessity of the voluminous record sought to be summoned. It is further submitted that the defence sought to be led was not specifically pleaded at the appropriate stage and that the application was moved only with a view to prolong the proceedings. It is, therefore, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 6. The controversy in the present petition is confined to the correctness MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.20 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32687-2026 (O&M) -4- CNR No. PHHC010969102026 of the order whereby the learned trial Court declined the petitioner's prayer to summon certain defence witnesses along with the relevant business record. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused must be afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The right to lead defence evidence constitutes an important facet of a fair trial. Although such right is not absolute and the Court is empowered to decline requests which are frivolous, vexatious or intended merely to delay the proceedings, at the same time, where the proposed evidence bears a direct nexus with the defence sought to be raised by the accused, the Court should ordinarily adopt a liberal approach. 7. In the present case, the petitioner has consistently taken the stand that the cheque in question had been issued in connection with his business dealings with M/s Tara Chand Prem Chand Commission Agency and not towards discharge of any liability owed to the complainant. It also appears from the record that during cross-examination certain admissions were elicited from the complainant regarding the existence of the said commission agency and the petitioner's dealings therewith. The petitioner thereafter reiterated the same defence while making his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The witnesses and record sought to be summoned are intended to substantiate the aforesaid defence. Whether such defence ultimately inspires confidence or not is a matter to be determined by the learned trial Court after appreciation of the entire evidence. At this stage, the Court is only required to examine whether the proposed evidence is relevant for adjudication of the controversy. This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court adopted an unduly restrictive approach while declining the application. The proposed evidence cannot be said to be wholly irrelevant or MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.20 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32687-2026 (O&M) -5- CNR No. PHHC010969102026 unnecessary so as to deny the petitioner an opportunity to produce the same. At the same time, keeping in view the summary nature of proceedings under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and the need for expeditious disposal, the petitioner cannot be permitted to prolong the trial indefinitely. The ends of justice would, therefore, be adequately served by granting the petitioner limited and effective opportunities to conclude his defence evidence. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.04.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal is hereby set aside. The learned trial Court shall permit the petitioner to summon and examine the defence witnesses as mentioned in the application and to produce the relevant record, subject to its admissibility and proof in accordance with law. 8. However, in order to ensure expeditious disposal of the complaint, the petitioner is granted only two effective opportunities to conclude the entire defence evidence. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall ordinarily be granted and in the event of failure to conclude the defence evidence within the aforesaid opportunities, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. 20.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Waseem Waseem Waseem R. R. R. R. Ansari Ansari Ansari Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.20 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document