IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-16893 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 30th May, 2011 Sandeep Kumar Dhawan … Petitioner Versus Taneja Sons HUF … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the order (Annexure P-3) dated 16th April, 2011 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Jalandhar in criminal complaint No.6084/2009 be quashed. Petitioner is facing prosecution in a complaint instituted by the respondent under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant and his witnesses were examined. Later-on, an application was filed by the petitioner-accused stating that Tajinder Taneja be further called in the witness box for re-examination as the petitioner-accused during cross-examination could not confront him with his previous statement recorded by the police. The trial Court declined his application on the ground that the cross-examination of Tajinder Taneja was conducted on 9th December, 2010 and on that day the complainant had closed his evidence and the case was fixed for Criminal Misc. No. M-16893 of 2011 (O&M) recording statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court further stated that on 1st February, 2011, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the case was fixed for recording defence evidence on 21st February, 2011. On 21st February, 2011, the case was adjourned to 7th March, 2011 for leading defence evidence. The trial Court declined the application on the ground that the accused was not diligent enough to approach the Court at the earliest. Besides the reasoning given by the trial Court, this Court is of the view that once the cross-examination concluded, later-on the accused cannot be permitted to pick holes in the evidence of the witness. If such a course is permitted, no trial will conclude. No exceptional circumstances are made out to accept the prayer made in the present petition. However, at this stage, counsel for the petitioner has stated that report of the investigating agency is required to be brought on the record. This prayer of the petitioner can be accepted as the defence evidence has not yet concluded and the petitioner can prove the report of the investigating agency in his defence evidence. If such an application is filed before the trial Court, the same shall be dealt with and decided by it in accordance with the provisions of law after hearing the concerned parties. With the observations made above, present petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 30, 2011 rps 2