Bhajan Lal vs Sandeep Kumar Godara

Arun Monga, J

Petitioner herein is impugning an order dated 29.06.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sannagria, District Hanumangarh, in Criminal Regular Case No.78/2021, whereby, the application of the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for re-cross examining the complainant, was rejected.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, alleging that the petitioner gave a cheque amounting to Rs. 8 lakhs to the complainant, but the same was dishonored. It is stated that during the trial, the petitioner could not complete the cross-examination of the complainant, and it was closed. Thus, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to re-summon the complainant for cross-examination. Vide order dated 29.06.2024, the same was rejected. Hence, this petition.

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file along with order impugned.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned court below has erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. because the facts available on record were not properly considered by the learned court below nor any proper opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner or his counsel.

The impugned order is based on the reasoning that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Shailendra Vs. State: AIR 2006 SC 655, has held that an oversight or bona fide mistake does not constitute a category of deficiency and that crucial evidence can be recalled at any stage of the process to ensure a correct decision. Applying this principle to the specific circumstances of the case, it is noted that the case against the accused was taken cognizance of on 13.12.2017. On 14.02.2020, the accused was informed of the charges and was granted bail. The case proceeded with the complainant's cross-examination, which was completed on 22.02.2020. Following this, the accused’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, and the accused was given an opportunity to present evidence in defense. However, since the accused did not present any evidence, the case was scheduled for final arguments. This shows that the accused had multiple opportunities to present his case, none of which were utilized. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner's request under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is not considered justified. Consequently, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

Having given my consideration, I concur with the reasoning articulated in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. Upon a thorough review, I find no basis for interference, as no irregularity in either legal principles or factual findings has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments. The learned counsel has not demonstrated any deviations from legal norms or factual aspects that would warrant a reconsideration of the order in question. The reasoning and conclusions drawn by the learned court below appear to be sound and well-supported by the evidence and applicable law.

In the premise, no grounds to interfere.

Dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.