Mr Tribhuwan Kumar Parnami Vs Mrs Tripta Mehta

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of the impugned order dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure P-2), vide which learned trial Court has closed the evidence of complainant by recording the cross examination as ‘Nill’ in a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act bearing No.NACT-9229-2018 dated 04.05.2018.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that initially respondent-Tripta Mehta was the complainant and she authorized one Mr. Bimal Bedi through the special power of attorney and later on, said Bimal Bedi substituted with Mr. Bedi Akshay and Mr. Akashay Bedi requested for his examination/evidence through a whatsapp video call mentioning that he is

¶15

GEETA RANI 2026.02.12 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶16

CRM-M-4948-2025 (O&M) ( 2 )

¶17

presently residing at Brampton, Ontario, Canada and the Ld. Trial Court permitted evidence of the complainant/ present respondent through whatsapp video call and the counsel for the present petitioner/ accused objected the same by having some confussion regarding his identity and due to the same, the counsel for the present petitioner requested for an adjournment but the ld. Trial Court recorded the cross examination as nil and further adjourned the matter for recording of the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel prayed that the defence can only be put during the cross exmaination of the complainant, therefore, one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner/accused to cross examine the complainant.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the case was adjourned for cross-examination time and again. Further the complainant witness was permitted to appear through VC vide order dated 22.11.2024, but the defence has failed to cross examine the complainant witness on date fixed.

¶19

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the trial Court.

¶20

The operative part of the impugned order dated 13.12.2024 is reproduced as under:-

¶21

“…

¶22

2. The present complaiant pertains to year 2018. The case was adjourned for cross-examination on 04.10.2024, 07.11.2024, 22.11.2024 and today 28.11.2024. Further complainant witness was permitted to appear through VC vide order dated

¶23

GEETA RANI 2026.02.12 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶24

CRM-M-4948-2025 (O&M)

¶25

( 3 )

¶26

22.11.2024. In view of the above, as defense failed to produce any order of stay by any superior Court on present proceeding, hence this court is bound to advance proceeding. Hence the request for adjournment is declined.

¶27

3. ...

¶28

4. Complainant witness Akshay Bedi appeared through whatsapp call. The ID of the witness is confirmed in presence of accused and his counsel. Further it is also ensured that the background of the witness and room area is clearly visible in the frame of the video to rule out any possibility of tutoring, threat, fear, or duress. The examination-in-chief of the witness is recorded. Accused and his counsel were given an opportunity to cross examine the witness but they did not opted to crossexamine the witness. So the cross examination is recorded as NIL and evidence of witness Akshay Bedi is concluded. The evidence of witness is counter signed by the counsel of the complainant as well as counsel of the accused. A copy of the statement has been given to counsel of complainant with the direction to get the same signed by witness Akshey Bedi and to produce the same on record.

¶29

Now, to come upon 17.12.2024 for recording statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.”

¶30

Perusal of record shows that opportunity was given to the petitioner and his counsel to cross-examine the witness, but he did not opt to do so, moreso, they have also signed the statement in examination-in-chief of the prosecution witness which is deposed before learned Trial Court. Thereafter, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 17.12.2024, and case was fixed for defence evidence. Even defence evidence was also

¶31

GEETA RANI 2026.02.12 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

¶32

CRM-M-4948-2025 (O&M) ( 4 )

¶33

closed on 09.01.2025 and case was then fixed for documentary defence evidence, which was also closed vide order dated 29.01.2025. The present petition is filed on 27.01.2025 i.e. with an inexplicable delay.

¶34

Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the present petition, accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶35

( SUBHAS MEHLA ) 29.01.2026 JUDGE

¶36

Geeta Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No

¶37

GEETA RANI 2026.02.12 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

Mr Tribhuwan Kumar Parnami v. Mrs Tripta Mehta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Tribhuwan Kumar Parnami v. Mrs Tripta Mehta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devender Singh Vs State of Haryana& Anr.

Rohtash Yadav @ Rohitashav Yadav Vs Mahesh Kumar Sharma

Navneet Aggarwal Vs State of Punjab

Naseeb Singh Vs Vikasdeep Arora

Daawat Foods Ltd. Vs M/S Janak Raj Rajnish Kumar & Ors.

Dilbag Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another