IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No. M- 24643 of 2009 Date of decision:- 06.4.2010 Saurav Anand ...Petitioner Versus Savita Jain ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vinod K. Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Sagar, Advocate for the respondent. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 17.8.2009, passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana in complaint No.547/2 dated 10.6.2008, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act titled “Savita Jain vs. Saurav Anand”, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana and for allowing the application of petitioner (Annexure P-2) for recalling attorney of respondent for further cross- examination. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Briefly stated compliant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by respondent-complainant against the present petitioner. After appearance of petitioner, the evidence was led by respondent- complainant. Attorney of complainant was thoroughly cross-examined on behalf of petitioner. Evidence of respondent-complainant was closed and the case was fixed for recording the statement of petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. when the present application was filed. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has obtained photocopies of some diary used to be maintained by complainant from a co-dealer and that the said photocopy of diary is to be put to attorney of Criminal Misc.No. M- 24643 of 2009 -2- complainant. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-complainant contended that the alleged photocopy of the diary has been fabricated by the petitioner and that no such diary was prepared by the respondent-complainant and that no such question regarding the said diary was put to the attorney of respondent-complainant despite the fact that he was cross-examined at length on 10.4.2009 and 11.7.2009. It has been further contended that it is misuse of process of Court. Though the Court is having ample power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall any witness, already examined and however, the said power is to be exercised judiciously. The power cannot be exercised to harass a witness. In this case, sufficient opportunities were given to petitioner to cross-examine the attorney of complainant. Lengthy cross-examination was conducted on attorney of complainant on 10.4.2009 and 11.7.2009. No question regarding the alleged diary was put to the witness. Hence, no ground for recalling the attorney of complainant for further cross-examination is made out. It cannot be said that the order passed by the learned trial Court is in any way perverse or illegal. There is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. April 06, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) vj JUDGE