Pkh Buildicon Pvt Ltd vs Manish Khilwani

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68103
1 MCRC-14353-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
nd
ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14353 of 2026
PKH BUILDICON PVT LTD
Versus
MANISH KHILWANI
Appearance:
Ms. Vidhi Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Kumar Kurmi - Advocate forl for the respondent .
ORDER
This application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the applicant seeking quashment of the
order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge,
Rewa in Criminal Revision No.18/2026, whereby the revision preferred
against the order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the learned JMFC, Rewa,
closing the right of the applicant to cross-examine the complainant, has been
dismissed.
2. The case arises out of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, registered as SCNIA No.516/2020, titled Manish
Khilwani Vs. PKH Buildicon, pending before the learned JMFC, Rewa. The
applicant is one of the accused in the said proceedings. It is the case of the
applicant that on 13.01.2026, learned counsel for the applicant sought a short
adjournment on the ground that he was required to appear after lunch for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 07-09-2026
17:58:06

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68103
2 MCRC-14353-2026
cross-examination of a doctor through video conferencing in another case at

Satna. According to the applicant, learned counsel had appeared before the
trial Court in the present matter before lunch and had also appeared on earlier
dates. It is contended that the request was bona fide and confined to a short
adjournment, but the learned trial Court declined the said request and closed
the right of the applicant to cross-examine the complainant, observing that
the right to cross-examine the said witness had earlier been closed and was
subsequently revived by the learned Revisional Court, which had granted an
opportunity to the applicant to cross-examine the witness. The learned Trial
Judge further observed that the vakalatnama filed on behalf of the applicant
contains the names of seven associate advocates, and no satisfactory
explanation had been furnished as to why the cross-examination could not be
conducted through any of the associate advocates.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although the applicant
had been granted opportunities earlier, the circumstances prevailing on
13.01.2026 were genuine and beyond the control of the counsel. It is
submitted that the counsel was required to conduct cross-examination of a
doctor in another case through video conferencing and had accordingly
sought only a short accommodation. It is further submitted that the
documents placed on record demonstrate that the counsel was actually
engaged in the other proceedings and, therefore, the absence was not
deliberate. Learned counsel submits that cross-examination is an essential
component of a fair trial and that denial of an effective opportunity would
cause serious prejudice to the applicant. It is therefore prayed that one final
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 07-09-2026
17:58:06

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68103
3 MCRC-14353-2026
opportunity may be granted to complete the cross-examination, subject to

such terms as this Court may deem appropriate.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant have opposed the
application. It is submitted that the applicant had already been granted four
opportunities by the learned trial Court for cross-examination of the
complainant, but the same were not properly utilized and consequently the
opportunity was closed. It is further submitted that even during the revisional
proceedings, an opportunity was made available to the applicant, but the
applicant again failed to complete the cross-examination. It is argued that the
accused cannot claim repeated opportunities as a matter of right and that
permitting another opportunity would further delay the proceedings under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, this Court finds that the grievance of the applicant cannot be rejected
outright. It is true that the applicant had been granted four opportunities by
the trial Court and that an opportunity was also available during the
revisional proceedings. Ordinarily, in such circumstances, no further
indulgence would be warranted. However, the present case has to be
considered in the backdrop of the specific explanation furnished for the
relevant date, namely, that learned counsel was engaged in cross-
examination of a doctor through video conferencing in another case and had
sought only a short adjournment in the present matter.
6. The right of cross-examination is an important facet of a fair trial.
Though such right cannot be permitted to be abused for delaying the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 07-09-2026
17:58:06

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68103
4 MCRC-14353-2026
proceedings, at the same time, the Court is required to ensure that an accused

is not deprived of a meaningful opportunity to test the evidence against him
on account of circumstances which, in the peculiar facts of the case, appear
to have some justification. The power under Section 528 of the BNSS is
intended to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the
Court.
7. In the present case, this Court is not inclined to grant an open-ended or
repeated opportunity to the applicant. However, considering the explanation
furnished for the particular date, the nature of the right involved and the
consequence of completely closing the applicant's right to cross-examine the
complainant, this Court is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, one
last and final opportunity can be granted to the applicant. Such indulgence,
however, cannot be granted without consequence, particularly when the
applicant has already been afforded an opportunity by the learned Revisional
Court. Accordingly, the relief is made subject to payment of costs of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only), which shall be deposited
by the applicant before the Registry of this Court within a period of fifteen
days from today.
8. Accordingly, the application is allowed, subject to the payment of costs
as aforesaid. The order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned III Additional
Sessions Judge, Rewa in Criminal Revision No.18/2026 and the order dated
13.01.2026 passed by the learned JMFC, Rewa, to the extent whereby the
right of the applicant to cross-examine the complainant was closed, are
hereby set aside.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 07-09-2026
17:58:06

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68103
5 MCRC-14353-2026
9. The applicant is granted one last and final opportunity to complete the

cross-examination of the complainant. The learned Trial Court shall fix a
specific date for the said purpose. On the date so fixed, the applicant shall
ensure the presence of his counsel and shall complete the entire cross-
examination without seeking any further adjournment. It is made clear that
no further opportunity shall be granted to the applicant on the ground for
which the present indulgence has been extended. In the event the applicant
fails to avail the aforesaid opportunity, the order closing his right to cross-
examine the complainant shall stand revived and the learned Trial Court
shall proceed further in accordance with law.
10 The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the applicant towards costs
shall be remitted by the Registry of this Court to the Collector, Jabalpur, in
an appropriate fund, who shall ensure that the said amount is utilized
exclusively for the welfare and benefit of the children residing in the Child
Care Institutions/Children Homes established and managed by the State
Government at Jabalpur. The Collector, Jabalpur, shall ensure proper and
transparent utilization of the aforesaid amount and shall furnish, once in
every calendar year, a consolidated report regarding its utilization to the
Secretariat, Juvenile Justice Committee, High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Jabalpur, as well as to this Court.
11. Accordingly, petition is disposed off.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 07-09-2026
17:58:06

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:68103
6 MCRC-14353-2026
Prachi

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 07-09-2026
17:58:06