Dismissed

Surinder Kumar v. Anil Kumar and Other

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2019CRM-M/10122/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The court held that moving for recall of a witness at final arguments equated to gross abuse of process. Finding no illegality in the impugned orders, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed and the impugned orders of the revisional and trial courts were upheld.

Surinder Kumar Vs Anil Kumar and Other — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

CRM-M-10122-2019

¶2

--1--

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-10122-2019 DECIDED ON: 06.05.2019

SURINDER KUMAR

...PETITIONER..

VERSUS

ANIL KUMAR SAINI AND ANR.

¶9

...RESPONDENTS..

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

¶11

Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhoria, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Through this petition, challenge has been laid to order dated 08.01.2019 (P-1), whereby revisional court, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner for setting aside order dated 11.10.2018 (P-2) of the trial court, dismissing his application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the complainant for further cross-examination.

¶15

Briefly, in a complaint filed by respondent-complainant against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "Act"), on the date of final arguments, the petitioner by changing his counsel moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the respondent-complainant for his further crossexamination.

¶16

Heard.

¶17

SONIKA 2019.05.09 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CRM-M-10122-2019

¶19

--2--

¶20

The cases under Section 138 of the Act are mainly to be decided on the basis of affidavit and counter affidavit.

¶21

Perusal of impugned orders of both the courts below shows that after recording the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C., several opportunities were afforded to him to conclude his evidence, but he did not ever opt to summon the complainant afresh for further cross-examination. It is only at the stage of final arguments, the petitioner by changing his counsel, came forward by moving an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the respondentcomplainant for further cross-examination, which certainly amounts to gross abuse of the process of law.

¶22

I have gone through the impugned orders and find no illegality and infirmity in the same. Hence, the same are upheld. As such, the instant petition is dismissed.

¶23

06.05.2019 (RAMENDRA JAIN) sonika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶24

SONIKA 2019.05.09 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Surinder Kumar v. Anil Kumar and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Kumar v. Anil Kumar and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jatinder Chaudhary Vs Kanhiya Lal

Amanpreet Singh @ Mampy Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sapna and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dinesh @ Bittu Vs State of Haryana

Raghbir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Akanksha Mamgain @ Akanksha Sharma Vs Union of India