In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-35467 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:3.12.2010 Anup Singh .....Petitioner v. Pal Singh .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been filed against the order dated 10.11.2010 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is accused, for recalling the complainant (CW-1) for further cross- examination has been dismissed. The respondent-Pal Singh has filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`NI Act' - for short) on the ground that a cheque for an amount of `24 Lacs issued by the petitioner was dishonoured by his banker on account of insufficient funds. During the trial of the case the respondent-Pal Singh appeared before the trial Court as CW-1 and was cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner. It is, however, submitted that the respondent could not be effectively cross- examined by putting specific question so as to establish that the respondent Cr. Misc. No.M-35467 of 2010 [2] had misused the blank cheques not only in his favour but in the names of his close associates, namely, Parveen Kohli and Sandeep Kohli. The petitioner being a layman could not bring these facts to the notice of his counsel earlier. Therefore, it is submitted that the circumstances are material to establish that the complaint is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of Court on the part of the respondent. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and with the assistance of the leaned counsel for the petitioner gone through the records of the case. It may be noticed that the responded filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act on 28.2.2005. The learned trial Magistrate in his impugned order dated 10.11.2010 (Annexure-P.3) observed that the summoning order was passed on 28.2.2005 and the accused-petitioner appeared on 4.4.2005. The examination-in-chief of the complainant was recorded on 12.9.2005. Thereafter, the case was fixed for cross-examination of the complainant but it could not be recorded on as many as 15 dates for the period from 7.10.2005 to 17.4.2009. On all the dates, the complainant was present for his cross-examination. However, his cross-examination could not be conducted either on account of request of the accused himself or his counsel or due to some other reason by change of counsel, pendency of transfer application, absence of accused. Besides, on as many as four orders passed on 12.9.2005, 17.3.2006, 16.3.2009 and 17.4.2009, the accused-petitioner intentionally delayed the trial of the case because an amount of `24 Lacs was involved in the complaint case. Moreover, vide orders dated 21.7.2006 and 23.10.2006 the accused was also Cr. Misc. No.M-35467 of 2010 [3] imposed costs and last opportunity was granted for cross-examination of the complainant. Still further vide orders dated 7.11.2008 and 16.3.2009 when the accused-petitioner remained absent from the proceedings and his bail was cancelled, later, he appeared before the Court and was released on bail. The complainant was finally cross-examined on 12.5.2009. From the facts, it was crystal clear that the accused had taken 15 effective opportunities for cross-examination of the complainant during the period of four years. In his defence, the accused-petitioner has already taken 19 effective opportunities for leading his defence. The application (Annexure-P.1) for further cross- examination of the complainant was filed on 13.7.2010 and reply (Annexure-P.2) was filed to the same. In the circumstances, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate in declining the application (Annexure-P.1) of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 10.11.2010 (Annexure-P.3). The facts and circumstances indeed show that the petitioner has been granted sufficient and substantial opportunities to cross-examine the complainant; besides, he has taken 19 effective opportunities for his defence evidence. The questions that the petitioner now wants to put are that the complainant and his father had misused the blank cheques by filling the same in the name of their close associates/friends Parveen Kohli and Sandeep Kohli. These questions could well be put when the complainant was present in Court during the period of last four years. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Cr. Misc. No.M-35467 of 2010 [4] December 3, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*