M/S Veer Dev Rmc And Another vs M/S Abhiraj Associates

CRM-M-11212-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

132-2 CRM-M-11212-2026

M/s Veer Dev RMC and another .... Petitioners
V/s

M/s Abhiraj Associates ....Respondent

Date of decision: 11.11.2026
Date of uploading: 12.11.2026
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Nitin Sansanwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate for the respondent.
*
SUMEET GOEL , J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as
‘BNSS’), seeking quashing of order dated 13.01.2026 (Annexure P-6),
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panipat, in complaint
bearing NACT/2651/2023, titled M/s Abhiraj Associates versus Veer Dev
RMC whereby the complainant was permitted to tender his examination-in-
chief afresh and deferred the matter for his cross-examination without there
being any separate application seeking his recall or re-examination.
2. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the
lis in hand is adumbrated, thus:
(i) The facts, in brief, are that respondent-complainant – M/s
Abhiraj Associates, a proprietorship concern, engaged in the business of
trading of building materials, had instituted a complaint under Sections
138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioners
(herein) in respect of dishonour of cheque No.018936 dated 11.07.2023, for
Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Axis Bank.
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-11212-2026 2

(ii) As per the allegations levelled in the complaint, the parties had
regular business dealings and, pursuant thereto, the petitioners had
purchased building material from the respondent-complainant. After
adjustment of the payments allegedly made by the petitioners, an amount of
Rs.50,59,457/- was stated to be outstanding. In discharge of the aforesaid
liability, petitioner No.2 allegedly issued the cheque in question, which,
upon presentation, was dishonoured on 18.07.2023 with the remarks ‘Funds
Insufficient’. Despite service of the statutory demand notice dated
25.07.2023, the petitioners allegedly failed to make payment of the cheque
amount resulting in the institution of the complaint in question on
01.09.2023.
(iii) Upon consideration of the preliminary evidence led by the
complainant, the learned trial Court proceeded with the complaint and,
subsequently, notice of accusation was served upon the petitioners vide
order dated 29.11.2024. The complainant had tendered his preliminary
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.CW1/A, along with the relevant documents,
and the said preliminary evidence was closed vide order dated 01.09.2023,
as stated in the petition. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.03.2025, the matter
was adjourned for recording the statements of the accused under Section 313
Cr.P.C.
(iv) On 27.05.2025, the complainant moved an application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to examine certain additional
witnesses, namely, the dealing clerk of Bank of Baroda, Sector 13-17,
Panipat; the dealing clerk of the Goods and Services Tax Department,
Panipat; the dealing clerk of the Goods and Services Tax Department,
Rohtak; Chartered Accountant Manish Jain; and Notary Mukesh Kumar
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-11212-2026 3

Saini. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order
dated 18.09.2025. Thereafter, the learned trial Court proceeded to record the
examination-in-chief of the additional witnesses. Vide order dated
13.01.2026 (impugned order), the complainant was again examined and his
examination-in-chief was recorded, whereafter the matter was adjourned for
his cross-examination.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred the
petition in hand.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has iterated that the
impugned order is unsustainable in law inasmuch as the complainant had
already tendered his evidence and the same stood closed way-back on
01.09.2023. Learned counsel has further iterated that even after the
petitioners had been summoned and notice of accusation had been served
upon them, the complainant did not seek any permission for his further
examination. According to learned counsel, the proceedings had progressed
to the stage of recording the statements of the accused under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and, therefore, reopening of the evidence of complainant at such an
advanced stage was unwarranted. Furthermore, the application dated
27.05.2025, filed by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C., was
confined to the examination of certain additional witnesses and did not
contain any prayer seeking recall or re-examination of the complainant
himself. The trial Court, while allowing the said application vide order dated
18.09.2025, had permitted the examination of the witnesses specifically
mentioned therein. According to learned counsel, the subsequent recording
of the examination-in-chief of CW-1 for the second time on 13.01.2026,
without any specific application or notice to the petitioners, is beyond the
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-11212-2026 4

scope of the order dated 18.09.2025. It has been further contended that the
trial Court has failed to appreciate that proceedings under Section 138 of the
NI Act are intended to be summary in nature and the legislative object is to
ensure expeditious disposal of complaint(s) of dishonour of cheques.
Learned counsel has emphasized that by permitting the complainant to enter
the witness box repeatedly and improve his case would not only defeat the
very object of the statutory scheme but also cause serious prejudice to the
petitioners. On the strength of these submissions, learned counsel has
contended that the impugned order is arbitrary, suffers from non-application
of mind and amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, a
prayer has been made for setting aside of the impugned order as also
proceedings before the trial Court in the interregnum.
4. In oppugnation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-complainant has opposed the petition in hand and has submitted
that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional
infirmity which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction. Learned counsel has contended that the application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant was duly considered and
allowed vide order dated 18.09.2025 and pursuant thereto additional
witnesses were permitted to be examined for bringing relevant material on
record. According to learned counsel, the subsequent examination of the
complainant is for the proper adjudication of the complaint and not an
attempt to unnecessarily prolong the entire trial. It has been further
contended that the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. confer wide powers
upon the trial Court to summon, examine, recall or re-examine any person at
any stage of an inquiry or trial when such evidence is considered necessary
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-11212-2026 5

for arriving at a just decision. It has been further contended that no
irreparable prejudice has been caused to the petitioners as the matter has
specifically been adjourned for cross-examination of CW-1. Furthermore,
the petitioners have every opportunity to test the veracity of the testimony of
the complainant. On strength of these submissions, dismissal of the instant
petition has been canvassed for.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and gone
through the material available on record.
6. It would be apposite to notice herein that the complaint in
question arises out of alleged business transactions between the parties
relating to the supply of building material. The complainant has alleged that
after adjustment of the payments made by the petitioners, a substantial
amount remained outstanding and cheque No.018936 dated 11.07.2023 for
Rs.5,00,000/- was issued towards discharge of the said liability. The cheque
was dishonoured on account of “insufficient funds” which led to institution
of the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. Upon consideration of the
preliminary evidence led by the complainant, the learned trial Court
proceeded with the complaint. Thereafter, the complainant initially tendered
his evidence and the same was closed. However, subsequently, an
application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was moved seeking examination of
certain additional witnesses. The said application was allowed by the trial
Court vide order dated 18.09.2025. Thereafter, certain additional witnesses
were examined in the proceedings. It is in this factual background that the
complainant was again examined on 13.01.2026 and his further
examination-in-chief was recorded.
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-11212-2026 6

7. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that the complainant
whose evidence had already been closed, could not have been permitted to
render his examination-in-chief again particularly when the application
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. did not specifically contain any such prayer. A
meticulous perusal of the application dated 27.05.2025 filed by the
complainant would reveal that it also contain averments which reads thus:
“...... Now, the complainant wants to appear as a witness to place on
record all the documents as mentioned and examine above said witnesses
to support the version of the complainant. The said evidence is essential
for the proper adjudication of the complaint”
Thus pleadings, has to be read in conjunction with the prayer
made in the application as also the order wherein it has been specifically
observed by the trial Judge that “ present application is allowed ”. It would,
thus, be evident that the application dated 27.05.2025 was not confined
merely to summoning the additional witnesses but also contained a specific
averment on the part of the complainant to appear as a witness. The
application, when read as a whole, clearly reflects that the complainant
wanted to lead the requisite evidence, including his own testimony, for
proper adjudication of the complaint. Furthermore, merely because the
earlier evidence of the complainant had been closed would not, by itself,
place an embargo upon the trial Court from permitting his further
examination, if the same is considered necessary for the proper adjudication
of the complainant. Moreover, the examination-in-chief recorded on
13.01.2026 has not resulted in the closure of the right of the petitioners to
cross-examine the complainant. Rather, the matter has been specifically
adjourned for his cross-examination. Therefore, the petitioners would have
an adequate opportunity to confront the complainant with regard to his
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-11212-2026 7

earlier deposition and to question him regarding the circumstances
necessitating his subsequent examination. In the present case, the
complainant had specifically stated that he intended to appear as a witness to
place the relevant documents on record and support the version set out in the
complaint.
8. It may also be observed that the proceedings in the complaint
have been pending since the year 2023. The complaint relates to dishonour
of a cheque for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is also pertinent to observe
herein that the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate, at this stage,
that the subsequent examination of the complainant has change/altered the
nature of the complaint or any prejudice has been caused to their defence.
The apprehension that the complainant may improve upon his earlier
version, in the absence of any ground, constitute a sufficient ground for
quashing the impugned order. Furthermore, the order dated 18.09.2025,
whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was allowed, has not
been challenged by the petitioners.
9. It is trite law that the power of a Criminal Court to summon or
examine a witness or to recall and re-examine a person already examined, is
intended to advance the cause of justice and enable the Court to arrive at a
just and proper conclusion. It goes without saying that this salutary
legislative mandate, giving sweeping powers to a criminal trial Court, is
galore in the words “ appears to be essential to the just decision of the case ”.
By stretch of legal imagination, it can be inferred that the legislature has put
any fetters to the power of a criminal trial Court in this regard.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no
sufficient ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to interfere with the
AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-11212-2026 8

impugned order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Panipat. The petitioners have failed to establish that the
impugned order suffers from such illegality or perversity as would warrant
its quashing by this Court.
11. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is directed as follows:
(i) The impugned order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat does not call for any interference. Accordingly,
the present, petitioner, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
(ii) Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove
shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the Court below shall
proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced therefrom.
(iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.



(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
November 11, 2026
Ajay

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No

AJAY KUMAR
2026.11.12 15:59
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document