CRM-M-37378-2026 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37378-2026(O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 Omkar Bhushan @ Bunty ………Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..….Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Vipin Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (Oral). This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’), praying for setting aside the order dated 28.04.2026 (Annexure P.8) passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby an application (Annexure P.6) under Section 391 read with Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short `the N.I. Act’) filed by complainant-respondent No.2, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and, in default of payment thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for 10 days, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.05.2023 passed by the Court Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Phagwara. DALBIR SINGH 2026.07.24 11.23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37378-2026 (O&M) [2] 2.1 Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner filed an appeal, which is stated to be pending. 2.3 During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner moved an application under Section 391 read with Section 311 Cr.P.C., for further cross-examination of the complainant. The said application was opposed by respondent No.2-complainant by way of a reply. 2.4 Vide the order impugned herein, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, dismissed the said application, leading to the filing of the instant petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court could not properly cross-examine the complainant, the petitioner had to move the aforesaid application. Still further, it is argued that respondent No.2-complainant is a practicing Advocate at Phagwara Courts and he also remained Joint Secretary and Vice President of Bar Association, Phagwara, for 2019 and 2022-23, respectively. It is argued that due to his influence, the counsel for the petitioner could not put the most relevant and essential questions to him, while he was examined as CW1. It is submitted that, in any case, no prejudice would have been caused to respondent No.2-complainant if the said application had been allowed by the Appellate Court. Learned counsel further argues that under Section 432 of the BNSS (Section 391 Cr.P.C.), the Appellate Court is empowered to permit leading of additional evidence, but the said aspect was not taken into DALBIR SINGH 2026.07.24 11.23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37378-2026 (O&M) [3] consideration by the Appellate Court, while passing the impugned order. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner but find the same to be devoid of merit. 6. A perusal of the file shows that the complaint under the N.I. Act was filed by respondent No.2-complainant on 11.09.2019. The petitioner was summoned to face trial and subsequently, notice of accusation had been served upon the him. Thereafter, parties led their respective evidence and finally, the complaint was decided on 16.05.2023. 7. A perusal of the file further shows that CW1- complainant was firstly cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioner on 04.01.2023. However, on the request of the counsel for the petitioner, his cross-examination was deferred. The complainant was further cross-examined on 23.01.2023. The said cross-examination runs into 5 pages. A further perusal of the said cross-examination shows that the questions regarding financial capacity of the complainant, the factum of Rs. 4,30,000/- having been given by the complainant to the petitioner and dishonouring of the cheque, were duly put to him. 8. The Appellate Court, while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner rightly recorded that Section 391 Cr.P.C. (Section 432 Cr.P.C.) provides for permission to lead additional evidence, but the petitioner was seeking recall of the witness (CW1-Ashish Kumar) for further cross-examination. DALBIR SINGH 2026.07.24 11.23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37378-2026 (O&M) [4] 9. As noticed above, the complaint was filed on 11.09.2019. Respondent No.1-complainant was cross-examined at length on 04.01.2023 and on 23.01.2023. The complaint was finally decided on 16.05.2023. The application filed before the Appellate Court seems to be an afterthought inasmuch as had there been any substance in the grounds pleaded in the said application, the petitioner would have made efforts to move such application before the trial Court. No explanation is forthcoming as to why such application was not moved before the trial Court. 10. That being so, this Court finds that the impugned order does not call for any interference. 11. In view of the above, the instant petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of. (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) 21.07.2026 JUDGE ds Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DALBIR SINGH 2026.07.24 11.23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document