Sukhwant Kaur vs Amrik Singh

Rekha Mittal, J.—This order will dispose of the aforementioned petitions (CRM M 24576 and 24578 of 2013) as identical questions of law and facts are involved, between the same parties, for adjudication. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CRM M 24576 of 2013.

The petitioner is facing trial in proceedings under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, ''the Act'') in a criminal complaint filed by Amrik Singh (Respondent herein) against M/s. Bhangu Trading Company and its partners, namely Amarjit Singh Bhangu and Sukhwant Kaur (petitioners herein). The petitioner filed an application u/s 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ''Cr.P.C.'') for recalling Amrik Singh, complainant for further cross examination on the plea that certain material questions could not be put to the witness with regard to the petitioner being not the partner of the firm at the relevant time and no legal notice being issued to her. The application was dismissed by the trial Court and the revision petition preferred before the Court of Sessions also met the same fate.

Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has approached this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that a serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, in case, she is not permitted to further cross examine the complainant to ask certain material questions which are relevant for decision of the case qua liability of the petitioner to face penal consequences due to dishonour of cheque. It is further submitted that those material questions could not be put to the witness due to inadvertent mistake.

Counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, contents that so far as the issuance of notice is concerned, it is a matter of record as the said notice was received back undelivered and it has been exhibited on record. With regard to the petitioner being not the partner at the relevant time, the case is pending for evidence in defence and she is at liberty to examine herself u/s 315 Cr.P.C. as well as produce her witness(es) to substantiate her plea in this regard. It is further argued that the application was filed by the petitioner with the sole motive to delay the proceedings, pending in the Court for the last about five years.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.

There is no dispute about the settled position of law that u/s 311 of Cr.P.C., the trial Court is bestowed with vast powers to examine and re-examine a witness, whose examination and re-examination is necessary for just decision of the case. However, any discretion vested in the Court, is to be exercised judicially to serve the cause of justice. The complainant was cross examined at length by opposite counsel representing the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent is right in his submission that legal notice issued by the complainant is a matter of record and it can be seen if said notice was issued to the petitioner as well. So far as the claim of the petitioner that she was not the partner of the firm at the relevant time, she can produce her evidence in defence to substantiate her plea to this effect. The petitioner has not placed on record any document with regard to dissolution of the firm or her ceasing to be the partner of M/s. Bhangu Trading Company.

In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore, I do not find any error much illegality in the impugned orders as would call for intervention. As a result, the petitions are dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to prove her plea by way of defence evidence.