₹22.17-Lakh Cheque Case: P&H HC Upholds Complainant’s Fresh Testimony After Evidence Closed, With Cross-Examination Open

The respondent-complainant filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging dishonour of a cheque for ₹22,17,457 issued in connection with business dealings.

After the complainant’s initial evidence was closed, the trial court allowed his application under Section 311 CrPC to examine additional witnesses.

On 13 January 2026, the complainant’s examination-in-chief was recorded again, and the matter was adjourned for cross-examination.

The accused challenged that order under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arguing that the application had not specifically sought their recall or re-examination.

Section 311 CrPC empowers a criminal court, at any stage of an inquiry or trial, to summon, examine, recall or re-examine a person if the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case.

The court held that the earlier closure of a witness’s evidence does not, by itself, bar further examination where the court considers it necessary for proper adjudication.

The accused’s opportunity to cross-examine the witness is relevant to whether the further examination causes prejudice.

The petition invoked Section 528 BNSS, but the judgment cited no precedent in support of its reasoning.

The application, read as a whole, stated that the complainant wished to appear as a witness, place documents on record and support his case; the trial court’s order allowing the application therefore supported the subsequent examination-in-chief.

The High Court also observed that the accused retained the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, including on his earlier deposition and the circumstances of his further examination.

The petitioners had not demonstrated that the further examination altered the nature of the complaint or caused prejudice to their defence.

Further, the challenged order was consequential to the unchallenged order allowing the Section 311 application, and entertaining a separate challenge to it would risk multiplicity of litigation.

It dismissed the petition, left the trial court to proceed in accordance with law without being influenced by the High Court’s observations, and disposed of any pending applications.