P&H HC Upholds Fresh Testimony In ₹10-Lakh Cheque Case, As Section 311 Pleading Said Complainant Wanted To Appear

The respondent filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging dishonour of a cheque for ₹10,00,000 issued towards outstanding business dues

After the complainant’s initial evidence was closed, the trial court recorded that the case had advanced to the stage of the accused’s statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

The complainant later applied under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine additional witnesses. The application stated that he wished to appear as a witness and place documents on record; the trial court allowed it on 18 September 2025.

On 13 January 2026, the complainant again tendered examination-in-chief, and the matter was adjourned for his cross-examination. The accused challenged that order under Section 528 BNSS, contending that the application and the order allowing it did not authorise the complainant’s further examination.

Section 311 Cr.P.C. 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 this power as broad and directed towards advancing justice, with no legislative fetter identified in the provision as discussed in the judgment.

Section 528 BNSS was invoked as the basis for the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to consider whether the impugned order should be quashed.

No judicial precedent was cited.

Read as a whole, the Section 311 application did not seek only to examine the listed additional witnesses: it also stated that the complainant wished to appear, place documents on record, and support his case. The trial court’s order allowing the application therefore supported the subsequent examination-in-chief.

The complainant remained available for cross-examination, giving the accused an opportunity to test his evidence and confront him with his earlier deposition; the accused had not demonstrated prejudice or a change in the nature of the complaint.

The High Court also noted that the 13 January 2026 order was consequential to the unchallenged order of 18 September 2025, and found no sufficient basis to interfere with it.

It dismissed the petition, while directing that its observations should not affect the merits and that the trial court proceed in accordance with law.