CRM-M-41306-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (142) CRM-M-41306-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:28.07.2026 ROSHAN KHAN … Petitioner Versus JAGSEER KHAN ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Ms. Kuljit Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The present is the first petition instituted under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking quashing of the order dated 29.04.2026, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga, in Complaint Case No. NACT-3-2025, titled “Jagseer Khan v. Roshan Khan”, instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Vide the impugned order, the application moved by the respondent-complainant under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) was allowed, and Baljit Singh, former Sarpanch, was permitted to be summoned and examined as an additional witness. The petitioner also seeks quashing of all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.28 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41306-2026 (O&M) -:2:- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the parties are closely related, as the complainant’s son and the petitioner’s daughter were married on 18.06.2023. Pursuant to a compromise dated 31.10.2023, the petitioner’s daughter undertook to facilitate the complainant’s son in proceeding to Canada, which obligation was duly fulfilled. It is submitted that the complainant has admitted that his son obtained the requisite visa and travelled to Canada on 10.09.2024. Despite the fulfilment of the aforesaid obligation, the respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging the dishonour of a cheque amounting to 6,00,000/-. During his cross- ₹ examination as CW-1, the complainant allegedly introduced a new assertion that the cheque had been handed over in the presence of Baljit Singh, former Sarpanch. Thereafter, the respondent-complainant moved an application under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking to summon the said person as an additional witness. 2.1. It is argued that the application was a belated attempt to fill up lacunae in the complainant’s case, particularly when the proposed witness was not cited in the original list of witnesses. It is further contended that the cheque was not issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability and, therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are not attracted. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.28 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41306-2026 (O&M) -:3:- 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have carefully perused the paper book and the material placed on record with his able assistance. 4. The scope and ambit of the power vested in the Court under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, are undoubtedly wide. The provision empowers the Court, at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding, to summon, examine, recall or re- examine any person as a witness where his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. The paramount consideration governing the exercise of such jurisdiction is the discovery of truth and the attainment of a just and effective adjudication. 4.1. In the present case, although the name of Baljit Singh, former Sarpanch, was not included in the original list of witnesses, his proposed testimony cannot, at this stage, be regarded as irrelevant or wholly extraneous to the controversy. He is stated to be a witness to the compromise dated 31.10.2023, which forms an integral part of the factual matrix and is also being relied upon by the petitioner. The complaint itself contains a specific reference to the compromise entered into between the parties. 4.2. Furthermore, when the respondent-complainant, Jagseer Khan, appeared as CW-1, he identified the signatures of Baljit Singh, former Sarpanch, and the other witnesses appearing on the compromise deed. A photocopy of the compromise was marked as Ex.R1 during his cross- examination. Significantly, the said document was introduced and relied GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.28 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41306-2026 (O&M) -:4:- upon by the petitioner himself. In these circumstances, the testimony of Baljit Singh may be relevant for elucidating the circumstances in which the compromise was executed, the nature of the obligations undertaken by the parties and the context in which the disputed cheque is alleged to have been issued. 4.3. The mere fact that the proposed witness was not initially cited in the list of witnesses does not, by itself, operate as an absolute bar against summoning him, particularly where the Court is satisfied that his testimony may assist in arriving at a just and effective determination of the controversy. The power under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is intended to prevent a failure of justice and cannot be restricted by a narrow or hyper-technical approach. At the same time, the petitioner shall have full opportunity to cross-examine the witness and to challenge the credibility and evidentiary worth of his testimony in accordance with law. Consequently, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner merely by permitting the examination of the said witness. 4.4. In view of the foregoing discussion, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the complaint or the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds no illegality, jurisdictional error, material irregularity or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The present petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.28 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41306-2026 (O&M) -:5:- 5. In view of the final disposal of the principal petition, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are required to be passed in respect thereof. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 28.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.28 15:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document