CRM-M-53655 v. Industries Pvt. Ltd

MANDEEP PANNU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddhant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddhant Jain, Viren Jain, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Viren Jain, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the This is a petition under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the This is a petition order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana in complaint titled M/s Kitty Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s Swani Motor Ludhiana in complaint titled M/s Kitty Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s Swani Motor Ludhiana in complaint titled M/s Kitty Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s Swani Motor Ludhiana in complaint titled M/s Kitty Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s Swani Motor n filed by the accused/petitioner Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., whereby the application filed by the accused/petitioner Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., whereby the applicatio Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., whereby the applicatio 3 for further cross- under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to recall CW-3 for further cross under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to recall CW under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to recall CW examination has been dismissed. examination has been dismissed.

2. It is contended in the application moved by the accused/present It is contended in the application moved by the accused/present It is contended in the application moved by the accused/present It is contended in the application moved by the accused/present petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. that during the cross petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. that du ring the cross-examination of CW examination of CW-3 conducted on 10.09.2024, the said witness admitted that as per their record cheque conducted on 10.09.2024, the said witness admitted that as per their record cheque conducted on 10.09.2024, the said witness admitted that as per their record cheque conducted on 10.09.2024, the said witness admitted that as per their record cheque No. 944770 dated 14.12.2019 had never been dishonoured and the concerned No. 944770 dated 14.12.2019 had never been dishonoured and the concerned No. 944770 dated 14.12.2019 had never been dishonoured and the concerned No. 944770 dated 14.12.2019 had never been dishonoured and the concerned the actual date of the account was operative on that date. It is further submitted that the actual date of the account was operative on that date. It is further submitted that account was operative on that date. It is further submitted that cheque in question is 14.01.2019, however, due to a typographical/arithmetical cheque in question is 14.01.2019, however, due to a typographical/arithmetical cheque in question is 14.01.2019, however, due to a typographical/arithmetical cheque in question is 14.01.2019, however, due to a typographical/arithmetical TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53655- -2025 (O&M) -2- error, the date was wrongly mentioned as 14.12.2019. It is pleaded that in order to error, the date was wrongly mentioned as 14.12.2019. It is pleaded that in order to error, the date was wrongly mentioned as 14.12.2019. It is pleaded that in order to error, the date was wrongly mentioned as 14.12.2019. It is pleaded that in order to 3 for clarify this discrepancy regarding the date of the cheque, recalling of CW-3 for clarify this discrepancy regarding the date of the cheque, recalling o clarify this discrepancy regarding the date of the cheque, recalling o examination is necessary. The application further states that such further cross-examination is necessary. The application further states that such examination is necessary. The application further states that such examination is necessary. The application further states that such recall is essential for proper adjudication of the case and in the interest of justice, recall is essential for proper adjudication of the case and in the interest of justice, recall is essential for proper adjudication of the case and in the interest of justice, recall is essential for proper adjudication of the case and in the interest of justice, and if the same is not allowed, grave prejudice would be caused to the accused. and if the same is not allowed, grave prejudice would be caused to the accus and if the same is not allowed, grave prejudice would be caused to the accus and if the same is not allowed, grave prejudice would be caused to the accus Accordingly, it is prayed that CW-3 be recalled for further cross Accordingly, it is prayed that CW examination to 3 be recalled for further cross-examination to clarify the correct date of the cheque in question. clarify the correct date of the cheque in question. clarify the correct date of the cheque in question.

3. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, after hearing Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, after hearing Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, after hearing Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, after hearing d the application while observing learned counsel for both the parties, has dismissed the application while observing learned counsel for both the parties, has dismisse learned counsel for both the parties, has dismisse that sufficient opportunities had already been granted to the accused to cross- that sufficient opportunities had already been granted to the accused to cross that sufficient opportunities had already been granted to the accused to cross that sufficient opportunities had already been granted to the accused to cross examine CW-3 and the cross examination was in fact conducted at length on 3 and the cross-examination was in fact conducted at length on examination was in fact conducted at length on stood closed multiple dates. It was further observed that the complainant evidence stood closed multiple dates. It was further observed that the complainant evidence multiple dates. It was further observed that the complainant evidence and even the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had been and even the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had been and even the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had been and even the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had been recorded, and thereafter the matter was adjourned for defence evidence. The recorded, and thereafter the matter was adjourned for defence evidence. The recorded, and thereafter the matter was adjourned for defence evidence. The recorded, and thereafter the matter was adjourned for defence evidence. The learned Magistrate noted that the present application had been filed at a highly learned Magistrate noted that the present application had been filed at a highly learned Magistrate noted that the present application had been filed at a highly learned Magistrate noted that the present application had been filed at a highly e after availing more than seven effective opportunities for defence belated stage after availing more than seven effective opportunities for defence e after availing more than seven effective opportunities for defence e after availing more than seven effective opportunities for defence evidence and even after final arguments had been addressed. It was also observed evidence and even after final arguments had been addressed. It was also observed evidence and even after final arguments had been addressed. It was also observed evidence and even after final arguments had been addressed. It was also observed that the application appeared to have been moved only to fill up lacunae in the that the application appeared to have been moved only to fill up lacunae in the that the application appeared to have been moved only to fill up lacunae in the that the application appeared to have been moved only to fill up lacunae in the when no question regarding the correct date of the defence case, particularly when no question regarding the correct date of the when no question regarding the correct date of the defence case, particularly examination. The Court further held that cheque was put to CW-3 during cross-examination. The Court further held that examination. The Court further held that cheque was put to CW allowing such an application at this stage would prejudice the complainant and allowing such an application at this stage would prejudice the complainant and allowing such an application at this stage would prejudice the complainant and allowing such an application at this stage would prejudice the complainant and s under Section 138 of the defeat the mandate of speedy trial in proceedings under Section 138 of the defeat the mandate of speedy trial in proceeding defeat the mandate of speedy trial in proceeding Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, finding no valid justification for the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, finding no valid justification for the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, finding no valid justification for the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, finding no valid justification for the delay or necessity of recall, the application was dismissed being devoid of merits. delay or necessity of recall, the application was dismissed being devoid of merits. delay or necessity of recall, the application was dismissed being devoid of merits. delay or necessity of recall, the application was dismissed being devoid of merits. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53655- -2025 (O&M) -3- er dated it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order dated it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned ord it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned ord

30.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana is 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana is 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana is 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana is illegal, arbitrary and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, as the application illegal, arbitrary and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, as the application illegal, arbitrary and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, as the application illegal, arbitrary and has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice, as the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved only for the limited purpose of clarifying an under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved only for the limited purpose of clarifying an under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved only for the limited purpose of clarifying an under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved only for the limited purpose of clarifying an inadvertent typographical error regarding the date of the cheque in question. inadvertent typographical error regarding the date of the cheque in question. inadvertent typographical error regarding the date of the cheque in question.

4. 3, the It is further submitted that during the cross-examination of CW-3, the It is further submitted that during the cross It is further submitted that during the cross date of the cheque was mistakenly recorded as 14.12.2019 instead of the actual date of the cheque was mistakenly recorded as 14.12.2019 instead of the actual date of the cheque was mistakenly recorded as 14.12.2019 instead of the actual date of the cheque was mistakenly recorded as 14.12.2019 instead of the actual and the recall of the witness was essential for proper date i.e. 14.01.2019, and the recall of the witness was essential for proper and the recall of the witness was essential for proper date i.e. 14.01.2019, adjudication of the case. It is argued that no new evidence was sought to be adjudication of the case. It is argued that no new evidence was sought to be adjudication of the case. It is argued that no new evidence was sought to be adjudication of the case. It is argued that no new evidence was sought to be introduced and the application was bona fide in nature, aimed only at clarifying the introduced and the application was bona fide in nature, aimed only at clarifying the introduced and the application was bona fide in nature, aimed only at clarifying the introduced and the application was bona fide in nature, aimed only at clarifying the nial of such an opportunity has caused record. The petitioner contends that denial of such an opportunity has caused nial of such an opportunity has caused record. The petitioner contends that de serious prejudice to the defence, whereas no prejudice would have been caused to serious prejudice to the defence, whereas no prejudice would have been caused to serious prejudice to the defence, whereas no prejudice would have been caused to serious prejudice to the defence, whereas no prejudice would have been caused to the complainant if the application had been allowed. It is also urged that the the complainant if the application had been allowed. It is also urged that the the complainant if the application had been allowed. It is also urged that the the complainant if the application had been allowed. It is also urged that the nd object of Section 311 learned trial Court failed to appreciate the true scope and object of Section 311 learned trial Court failed to appreciate the true scope a learned trial Court failed to appreciate the true scope a Cr.P.C. (para materia Section 348 BNSS), which empowers the Court to recall a Cr.P.C. (para materia Section 348 BNSS), which empowers the Court to recall a Cr.P.C. (para materia Section 348 BNSS), which empowers the Court to recall a Cr.P.C. (para materia Section 348 BNSS), which empowers the Court to recall a witness at any stage if it is necessary for a just decision of the case. witness at any stage if it is necessary for a just decision of the case. witness at any stage if it is necessary for a just decision of the case. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has contended that the Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has contended that th Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has contended that th Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has contended that th application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is false, application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is false, application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is false, application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is false, frivolous and vexatious, having been filed with the sole intention to delay the frivolous and vexatious, having been filed with the sole intention to delay the frivolous and vexatious, having been filed with the sole intention to delay the frivolous and vexatious, having been filed with the sole intention to delay the proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted sufficient and numerous proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted sufficient and numerous proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted sufficient and numerous proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted sufficient and numerous opportunities to cross ties to cross-examine CW-3 and, in fact, the witness was cross examined 3 and, in fact, the witness was cross-examined at length. It is further argued that there is no necessity for recalling the said at length. It is further argued that there is no necessity for recalling the said at length. It is further argued that there is no necessity for recalling the said at length. It is further argued that there is no necessity for recalling the said witness, and the present application has been moved only to fill up the lacunae in witness, and the present application has been moved only to fill up the lacunae in witness, and the present application has been moved only to fill up the lacunae in witness, and the present application has been moved only to fill up the lacunae in examination. The respondent asserts that no the defence after completion of cross-examination. The respondent asserts that no examination. The respondent asserts that no the defence after c TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53655- -2025 (O&M) -4- typographical error, as alleged, exists and the plea taken by the petitioner is an typographical error, as alleged, exists and the plea taken by the petitioner is an typographical error, as alleged, exists and the plea taken by the petitioner is an typographical error, as alleged, exists and the plea taken by the petitioner is an afterthought and that learned JMICS has rightly dismissed the application. afterthought and that learned JMICS has rightly dismissed the application. afterthought and that learned JMICS has rightly dismissed the application.

5. r the parties and have perused the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the r the parties and have perused the I have heard learned counsel fo record carefully. record carefully.

6. The present petition assails the order dated 30.08.2025 whereby the The present petition assails the order dated 30.08.2025 whereby the The present petition assails the order dated 30.08.2025 whereby the The present petition assails the order dated 30.08.2025 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana dismissed the application filed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana dismissed the application filed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana dismissed the application filed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling CW the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling CW-3.

7. It is well settled that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C., though It is well settled that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C., though It is well settled that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C., though It is well settled that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C., though wide, is discretionary and is to be exercised only when the evidence sought to be wide, is discretionary and is to be exercised only when the evidence sought to be wide, is discretionary and is to be exercised only when the evidence sought to be wide, is discretionary and is to be exercised only when the evidence sought to be elicited is essential for the just decision of the case. The said provision cannot be elicited is essential for the just decision of the case. The said provision cannot be elicited is essential for the just decision of the case. The said provision cannot be elicited is essential for the just decision of the case. The said provision cannot be open the case permitted to be invoked for the purpose of filling up lacunae or to re-open the case permitted to be invoked for the purpose of filling up lacunae or to re permitted to be invoked for the purpose of filling up lacunae or to re after sufficient opportunities have already been availed. In the present case, the after sufficient opportunities have already been availed. In the present case, the after sufficient opportunities have already been availed. In the present case, the after sufficient opportunities have already been availed. In the present case, the examined at length on multiple dates and the record reveals that CW-3 was cross-examined at length on multiple dates and the examined at length on multiple dates and the record reveals that CW er was granted adequate and effective opportunities to confront the witness petitioner was granted adequate and effective opportunities to confront the witness er was granted adequate and effective opportunities to confront the witness er was granted adequate and effective opportunities to confront the witness on all relevant aspects. The complainant evidence stood closed and even the on all relevant aspects. The complainant evidence stood closed and even the on all relevant aspects. The complainant evidence stood closed and even the on all relevant aspects. The complainant evidence stood closed and even the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Thereafter, the fence evidence. The present application has thus been filed matter was fixed for defence evidence. The present application has thus been filed fence evidence. The present application has thus been filed matter was fixed for de at a highly belated stage. The primary contention raised by the petitioner pertains at a highly belated stage. The primary contention raised by the petitioner pertains at a highly belated stage. The primary contention raised by the petitioner pertains at a highly belated stage. The primary contention raised by the petitioner pertains to an alleged discrepancy regarding the date of the cheque. However, this Court to an alleged discrepancy regarding the date of the cheque. However, this Court to an alleged discrepancy regarding the date of the cheque. However, this Court to an alleged discrepancy regarding the date of the cheque. However, this Court ntion. The cheque in question already stands finds no merit in the said contention. The cheque in question already stands ntion. The cheque in question already stands finds no merit in the said conte

1. A perusal of the said document clearly reflects that exhibited on record as Ex.C-1. A perusal of the said document clearly reflects that 1. A perusal of the said document clearly reflects that exhibited on record as Ex.C the cheque bears the date 14.01.2019 and the cheque number is 944770. The the cheque bears the date 14.01.2019 and the cheque number is 944770. The the cheque bears the date 14.01.2019 and the cheque number is 944770. The the cheque bears the date 14.01.2019 and the cheque number is 944770. The be read as it stands. Once the documentary evidence, being primary in nature, is to be read as it stands. Once the documentary evidence, being primary in nature, is to documentary evidence, being primary in nature, is to cheque itself, bearing the date 14.01.2019, is part of the exhibited record, any cheque itself, bearing the date 14.01.2019, is part of the exhibited record, any cheque itself, bearing the date 14.01.2019, is part of the exhibited record, any cheque itself, bearing the date 14.01.2019, is part of the exhibited record, any examination referring to a different date statement made during the course of cross-examination referring to a different date examination referring to a different date statement made during the course of cross TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53655- -2025 (O&M) -5- l of the witness. The does not assume such significance so as to necessitate recall of the witness. The does not assume such significance so as to necessitate recal does not assume such significance so as to necessitate recal alleged discrepancy, even if assumed, does not go to the root of the matter so as to alleged discrepancy, even if assumed, does not go to the root of the matter so as to alleged discrepancy, even if assumed, does not go to the root of the matter so as to alleged discrepancy, even if assumed, does not go to the root of the matter so as to 3 essential for a just decision of the case. On the contrary, render the recall of CW-3 essential for a just decision of the case. On the contrary, 3 essential for a just decision of the case. On the contrary, render the recall of CW evidence after the present application appears to be an attempt to re-open the evidence after the present application appears to be an attempt to re the present application appears to be an attempt to re examination and to improve upon the defence already taken. conclusion of cross-examination and to improve upon the defence already taken. examination and to improve upon the defence already taken. conclusion of cross Permitting such recall at this advanced stage would not only delay the proceedings Permitting such recall at this advanced stage would not only delay the proceedings Permitting such recall at this advanced stage would not only delay the proceedings Permitting such recall at this advanced stage would not only delay the proceedings but would also cause prejudice to the complainant, particularly in proceedings but would also cause prejudice to the complainant, particularly in proceedings but would also cause prejudice to the complainant, particularly in proceedings but would also cause prejudice to the complainant, particularly in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which are intended to be under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which are intended to be under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which are intended to be under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which are intended to be decided expeditiously. decided expeditiously.

8. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that no sufficient cause The learned trial Court has rightly observed that no sufficient cause The learned trial Court has rightly observed that no sufficient cause The learned trial Court has rightly observed that no sufficient cause has been shown for not raising the issue at the appropriate stage when the witness has been shown for not raising the issue at the appropriate stage when the witnes has been shown for not raising the issue at the appropriate stage when the witnes has been shown for not raising the issue at the appropriate stage when the witnes examination. The reasoning assigned in the impugned order was available for cross-examination. The reasoning assigned in the impugned order examination. The reasoning assigned in the impugned order was available for cross does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

9. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. hereby dismissed.

10. made hereinabove shall not be construed as However, any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as made hereinabove shall not be construed as However, any observation an expression on the merits of the case during trial an expression on the merits of the case during trial an expression on the merits of the case during trial

11. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. March 18, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable Whether reportable : Yes/No (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.25 19:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document