Satish Kumar v. Hardial Singh And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION :- January 19, 2018 Satish Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

Hardial Singh and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN Present:- Mr. R.K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tushantdeep Garg, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. Rakeshinder Singh Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.

*** This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner Satish Kumar seeking quashing of impugned order dated 21.8.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samana vide which application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning concerned officials of Life Insurance Corporation at Samana and Sangrur as witnesses, filed by petitioner in the complaint titled Satish Kumar versus Hardial Singh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been dismissed. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant Satish Kumar had brought a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Hardial Singh-accused pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Samana during the course of which he moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon official concerned from office of Life Insurance Corporation Samana along with record of policy dated 28.1.2005 in the name of Hardial Singh son of Udham Singh

besides another policy dated 18.11.2012 in the name of Gurbax Singh son of Udham Singh along with record pertaining to agent Parveen Kumar Garg as well as official concerned of LIC Sangrur with complete record of policy of Gurmeet Singh, Gurdit Singh son of Gurbax Singh and record pertaining to Satish Kumar. This application was contested by the accused stating that names of these witnesses were not examined in the list of witnesses attached with the complaint and they were not examined in the preliminary evidence and further more cross examination of complainant has been completed and complainant wants to cover up the lacuna directly effecting the offence of the accused, therefore, the application be dismissed. The trial Court has given a thought to the rival contentions.

One being put forward on behalf of complainant that examination of additional witnesses is required to prove the fact that complainant Satish Kumar and his wife are LIC agents and are known to that accused and his family. Since their LIC policies are done through the complainant and his wife and the production of the record sought to be summoned from those officials of LIC would show relation between the complainant and the accused. Whereas the plea put forward on behalf of accused is that complainant appearing as CW1 has admitted in his cross examination that neither the accused nor his children have taken LIC policies from the complainant and to fill up that lacuna the application has been filed.

The trial Magistrate, after hearing the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties has came to the conclusion that application is doomed for failure for various reasons.

to LIC policy for himself and his family members. The order so passed does not come out to be suffering from illegality or infirmity much less apparent on the face of it. Section 311 Cr.P.C. deals with power of the Court to summon material witness or examine person present. The power is vested in the Court which is to be decided in a judicious manner. In terms of that Section the Court may summon any person as a witness or recall or reexamine any person already examined. However, the Court is bound to summon and examine or recall and re-examine such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.

In the present case, the main controversy is as regards the fact whether the accused had issued the cheque in favour of the complainant on account of discharge of financial liability and the other things whether the complainant was well acquainted with the accused or the accused had taken LIC policies through the complainant are not much material. Therefore, examination of the witnesses sought to be examined by way of moving application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the complainant is not found to be necessary and essential for just decision of the case. There is no ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Finding no merit in the petition, the same stands dismissed. (H.S. MADAAN) JUDGE January 19, 2018 p.singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No