Criminal Misc. No. M-14788 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-14788 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.5.2011. Suraj Bhan ...... Petitioner Versus Neeraj Kumar ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) By this petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated January 7th, 2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal whereby application filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 311 of the Code for re-calling the complainant for further cross-examination was dismissed. 2. By filing application under Section 311 of the Code, the accused-petitioner seeks permission to further cross- examine the complainant on some material questions. Although no such material question was mentioned in the application yet this Court has gone through the questions sought to be put, as mentioned in the petition. The same reads as under:- i. Why no date of borrowing the amount has been mentioned by the complainant in his complaint; ii. Why even no date of first presentation of cheque to his banker is shown; iii. As to why complainant gave/lent such a huge amount of Rs.1,72,500/- to the present petitioner and what was the source of having such huge amount with a person (complainant) who is Criminal Misc. No. M-14788 of 2011 (O&M) 2 running a paint shop; iv. What were the reasons of not filing a complaint soon after earlier dishonour of the cheque; v. How the cheque was filled in English; whereas petitioner can only sign in Hindi; vi. Whether the amount given to the petitioner was shown in complainant's income tax return. 3. Section 311 of the Code contains a salutary provision that in cases where the evidence of a witness appears to be essential for the just decision of the case, the Court must recall such a witness for the purpose of re-examination, cross examination or for further examination. No doubt, a discretion has been conferred on the Court to summon any person as a witness but simultaneously, an obligation is also cast on the Court to record a conclusion that for just decision of the case, it is essential to recall, re-examine or cross- examine any other witness. 4. The facts of the case in hand show that the questions sought to be put are not essential for the adjudication of the controversy. They are not essential for the just decision of the case. In fact, the application seems` to have been moved as a ploy to delay the proceedings. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 13.5.2011. SN