Criminal Misc. No. M-13446 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-13446 of 2009 Date of decision: May 15, 2009 M/s Goyal Cloth House & another -Petitioners Versus Amrit Lal -Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of order dated 5.5.2009,Annexure P1, whereby application of the complainant to produce certified copies of documents by way of additional evidence has been allowed by the trial Court. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/complainant lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner due to dishonour of a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioners took up the defence that in fact the cheque book was lost by them and a DDR in this regard was registered with the police station. Thus, the cheque in question was never issued by them. The complainant led evidence before the Court and closed it on 30-9-2008. Thereafter on 25.4.2009, an application was moved by him to produce certain documents by way of additional evidence, the details whereof are as under: - Criminal Misc. No. M-13446 of 2009 2 A) A certified copy of the complaint titled as Balwinder Singh Vs. Vimal Kumar, File No. 586 of 8.5.2007, RT No. 201 dated 13.10.2008, decided on 16.4.2009 by Sh. Balwinder Singh, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. B) Certified copy of order dated 16.4.2009 regarding dismissal of the complaint as withdrawn; C) Certified copy of order dated 14.3.2009 regarding payment of Rs.20,000/- by accused Vimal Kumar to Balwinder Singh; D) Certified copy of statement of Balwinder Singh regarding receipt of amount of Rs.20,000/- as part payment from accused Vimal Kumar; E) Certified copy of statement of Balwinder Singh regarding receipt of amount of Rs.20,000/- from accused Vimal Kumar and to withdraw the complaint; F) Certified copy of statement of accused Vimal Kumar dated 5-12-2008 regarding compromise and to pay Rs.40,000/- in compromise to complainant upto 4.2.2009; G) Certified copy of cheque No. 232352 dated 2.4.2007 for Rs.1,00,000/- issued by Vimal Kumar in favour of Balwinder Singh, drawn on State Bank of Patiala, The Mall, Bathinda; H) Certified copy of cheque returning Memo dated 4.4.2007 with remarks “Account Closed”. The trial Court after considering the entire issue allowed the application on the ground that it had power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to allow additional evidence to be adduced before it, as also the fact that no prejudice shall be caused to the accused if the said documents are taken on record. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have given careful thought to the facts of the case. Criminal Misc. No. M-13446 of 2009 3 Counsel for the petitioners has mainly contended that by allowing the complainant to produce the documents in question by way of additional evidence, the trial Court has committed a grave error in law. According to him, the said documents are not at all relevant for the purpose of decision of the case and as such the impugned order is unsustainable. It appears that the trial Court allowed the documents to be produced by way of additional evidence, as no prejudice would be caused to the accused petitioners thereby. Moreover, the complainant wanted to produce some evidence to prove that the defence taken by the accused that the cheque book had been lost, was false. Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any legal infirmity with the impugned order. His plea that the documents, which have been allowed to be taken on record are not at all relevant, rather shows that no prejudice is likely to be caused to the accused-petitioners if the same are considered in evidence. In view of the above, I find no ground for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the impugned order dated 5-5-2009. The petition is hereby dismissed. [Rajan Gupta] Judge May 15, 2009. 'ask'