IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-868 of 2010 Date of decision : 13.1.2010 Lakhwinder Singh and Others …. Petitioners Versus Ramesh Kumar …. Respondent Present: Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners. **** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking setting aside of the order dated 1.12.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot. In terms of the said impugned order, the application of the petitioners for recalling the complainant Ramesh Kumar for further cross-examination has been declined. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that a cheque had been dishonoured. It is submitted that the petitioners want to prove that the complainant had the requisite resources for advancing money to them. In this respect, the complainant/respondent in his cross-examination stated that he had sold some property. Now the petitioners want to further cross- Crl. Misc. No. M-868 of 2010 [2] examine the complainant to ascertain as to which property has been sold. Earlier another counsel had been engaged by the petitioners and thereafter a new counsel was engaged. Therefore, it is submitted that the complete instructions for cross-examination could not be given. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the mere fact that another counsel had been engaged and an earlier counsel changed is not such a circumstance to allow further cross-examination of the complainant. The complainant was under cross-examination and in case he stated that he had raised money by selling some property, it was for the petitioners to cross- examine him at that time regarding sale of the properties. As the same having not been done, the complainant is not liable to be re- summoned for further cross-examination to ascertain as to which property was sold. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot has rightly declined to re-summon the complainant for further cross-examination. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE January 13, 2010 amit