Karnail Chand v. Rakesh Chopra And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-41638 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 29, 2016 Karnail Chand

...Petitioner

VERSUS

Rakesh Chopra and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Tarun Vir Singh Lehal, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against respondents Rakesh Chopra and Mohinder Ram, for quashing of order dated 15.10.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, vide which the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed and for further re-calling complainant Mohinder Ram under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination in the light of new evidence.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that Rakesh Chopra and Mohinder Ram complainants filed a complaint against Karnail Chand under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the pendency of the trial, an Vineet Gulati 2016.12.12 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh application was filed by the accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-

CRM No.M-41638 of 2016 -2calling complainant. It is stated in the application that at the time of crossexamination of complainant, the accused was not in possession of complaint and compromise. The concerned person from Police Station Goraya has produced the complaint and compromise and the accused wants to confront the signatures of the complainant on both the documents. It is stated that complainant had admitted in his crossexamination that he has given the complaint at Police Station Goraya. If this fact is admitted, then there is no need to prove the signatures of the complainant on the complaint. Furthermore, the case is fixed for defence evidence. The complainant cannot be recalled now again. The complaint and compromise were already in the knowledge of the accused and he could get the cross-examination deferred at that time and could have summoned the record but he has not done any such thing. Moreover, as regarding the compromise, the accused can prove it by bringing evidence i.e. any witness, scribe of the compromise or by coming into witness box himself etc.

In view of the above discussion, I find that the order dated 15.10.2016 passed by learned JMIC, Jalandhar, is correct, as per law and does not require any interference from this Court. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

November 29, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2016.12.12 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh