JUDGEMENT
JASPAL SINGH,J. -
(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for quashing of order dated 21.11.2014 (Annexure P-4)
passed by ld. SDJM, Samrala vide which application filed by the
petitioner for recalling the complainant for his cross-examination has
been dismissed, in a complaint case No. 4/2/15.1.14, captioned as "Arun
Kumar v. Sukhpal Kaur" under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act (for short, " Act" only).
(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the instant petition are that respondent-complainant lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in
the Court of Ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala against the
petitioner for alleged dishonour of cheque issued by her. Vide order
dated 15.01.2014, Ld. SDJM, Samrala summoned the petitioner to face
trial. In compliance of summons issued to the petitioner, she appeared
and joined the proceedings. The case was listed for the evidence of the
complainant for April 02, 2014. Since, on that date, no witness was
produced or examined, it was adjourned to April 29, 2014 and subsequent
thereto it was adjourned to August 27, 2014 but on that date also no
witness was examined but the case was listed for defence evidence to be
adduced by the petitioner on September 17, 2014. On that date i.e.
September 17, 2014, an application was moved for permission to recall the
complainant for the purposes of cross-examination but that application
was dismissed by the ld. trial court vide impugned order dated November
21, 2014, which necessitated the filing of instant petition.
(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner intends to cross-examine the complainant to prove her case
regarding the factum of non-legal liability/debt and non-advancement of
loan as well as who filled the cheques and that there was no agreement
for the repayment of any such amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further contends that earlier the application was not moved as the case
was fixed for the complainant evidence and abruptly, it was listed for
the defence evidence when the application was moved. Subsequent to filing
of the instant petition, even the FIR has also been registered against
the complainant-respondent at police Station Samrala, District Khanna
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, in which, it has been
clearly unfolded that the signatures on the blank cheques have been
obtained from the petitioner as a guarantee to repay some of the loan
amount borrowed by the husband of the petitioner. Thus, recalling of the
complainant is necessary to adjudicate the matter effectively and
judiciously.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.