P&H HC Upholds Complainant’s Fresh Examination-In-Chief In ₹5 Lakh Cheque Case, As Section 311 Plea Said He Wanted To Testify

The respondent filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging dishonour of a cheque for ₹5,00,000 issued towards an outstanding business liability.

After the complainant’s preliminary 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, arguing that the application did not specifically seek their recall or re-examination and that the complainant’s evidence had already been closed.

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

The court treated that power as broad and not subject to a bar merely because a witness’s earlier evidence had been closed.

The High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS permits interference where the impugned order discloses sufficient illegality or perversity warranting such intervention.

The complaint arose under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The application, read as a whole, stated that the complainant wished to appear as a witness to place documents on record and support his case; the trial court’s order allowing the application therefore supported the view that the request was not confined to the additional witnesses named in it.

The earlier closure of the complainant’s evidence did not, by itself, prevent further examination where it was considered necessary for proper adjudication.

The accused retained the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, including on the circumstances of his further examination, and had not shown that it altered the nature of the complaint or caused prejudice to their defence.

The order allowing the Section 311 application had also not been challenged.

It directed that the trial proceed in accordance with law and that its observations not affect the merits of the case; pending applications were also disposed of.