Jaspreet Singh v. M/S Saharan Commission Agent, Fazilka
CRR-914-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRR-914-2026 Decided on: 09.04.2026 Jaspreet Singh ......Petitioner Vs.
M/s Saharan Commission Agent ......Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Ms. Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate Ms. Navdeep Kaur Bhullar, Advocate and Ms. Tejasvi Luthra, Advocate for the petitioner.
*** 1.
Aggrieved by the acceptance of application under Section 311 CrPC by the trial Court vide which complainant is stated to have permitted for the third time to lead evidence, the accused has come up before this Court by filing the present revision petition. 2.
It shall be appropriate to refer to Annexure P-2, which is an application filed by the respondent/complainant under Section 311 CrPC. What they want to tender is only the documents i.e. Form-B issued by Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board, Form-A & C issued by Registrar to Firms and Societies to complainant Firm and copy of cash/credit voucher dated 15.04.2021 maintained by complainant firm. Further they have stated that the accused will get the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, it means they would not object to any cross-examination.
3.
Reply to the application is attached as Annexure P-3. The objection is that a last opportunity has already been given and further lacunas cannot be allowed to be filled. 4.
An analysis of the above clearly point out that what the complainant wanted to annex were those documents which were initially not required but the requirement had come because of the cross-examination as is apparent from the pleadings and documents attached in the petition. Further by the impugned order dated 05.03.2026, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class observed that in the cross-examination of the complainant specific questions were put to him regarding the bills pertaining to payments made to third party for purchase of ANJU RANI 2026.04.21 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh
CRR-914-2026 fertilizer seeds and pesticides and the case was still at the stage of complainant's evidence and cross-examination of CW2 in progress. Learned Judicial Magistrate rightly observed that the complainant was well within his right to lead evidence to clarify or rebut the doubts based during cross-examination by the accused. Further the complainant would have no other stage to clarify his stand by leading the evidence. An overall analysis of the situation does not find any illegality in the impugned order, rather the order is well founded, well reasoned and within the ambit of law.
5.
Given above, it is not a case for even issuing notices. However, considering the dispute to be compoundable this Court wants the matter to be sent to the mediation to explore possibility of compromise. Let the concerned trial Court send the matter to mediation center, even if already referred for mediation but it is clarified that unnecessary time should not be granted for mediation.
6.
Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE Apr 09th, 2026 Anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned YES Whether reportable NO ANJU RANI 2026.04.21 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh