Jaspreet Singh v. M/S Saharan Commission Agent, Fazilka

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Apr 2026CRR/914/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRR-914-2026; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Anoop Chitkara J.; Jaspreet Singh vs M/s Saharan Commission Agent; Section 311 CrPC; third permission to lead evidence; complainant's documents Form-B, Form-A & C; cash/credit voucher dated 15.04.2021; cross-examination rebuttal; Judicial Magistrate Ist Class order dated 05.03.2026; no illegality; revision disposed; mediation referral; compoundable dispute.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with the aforesaid observations; no interference with the impugned Section 311 CrPC order; matter to be sent to the mediation centre by the trial Court to explore compromise without unnecessary delay; all pending applications closed. ¶¶13

Jaspreet Singh Vs M/S Saharan Commission Agent, Fazilka — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's acceptance of the complainant's application under Section 311 CrPC — permitting the complainant to lead evidence for the third time — was illegal and liable to interference in revision at the instance of the accused.

¶¶4

Court's answer

No illegality is found in the impugned order; it is well founded, well reasoned and within the ambit of law — consequently this was not a case for even issuing notices.

¶¶11

Key takeaways

As the dispute is compoundable, the Court desired that the matter be sent to mediation to explore possibility of compromise, directing the concerned trial Court to refer it to the mediation centre even if already referred, while clarifying that unnecessary time should not be granted for mediation.obiter¶¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CR revision (CRR-914-2026, decided 09.04.2026) by accused Jaspreet Singh against order dated 05.03.2026 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class accepting complainant M/s Saharan Commission Agent's application under Section 311 CrPC — the third occasion on which the complainant was permitted to lead evidence — to tender Form-B of Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board, Form-A & C of Registrar to Firms and Societies, and a copy of cash/credit voucher dated 15.04.2021; the reply (Annexure P-3) had pleaded exhaustion of last opportunity. Cross-examination had put specific questions on bills pertaining to payments made to third party for purchase of fertilizer seeds and pesticides, the case being at the complainant's-evidence stage with CW2's cross-examination in progress. High Court (Anoop Chitkara, J.) found no illegality: the order is well founded, well reasoned and within the ambit of law, the complainant having no other stage to clarify his stand by leading evidence; hence not a case for even issuing notices. Deeming the dispute compoundable, the Court directed that the matter be sent to the mediation centre without unnecessary delay and disposed of the petition, closing all pending applications. Reportable: NO.

¶1

CRR-914-2026 ��

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRR-914-2026 Decided on: 09.04.2026 Jaspreet Singh ......Petitioner Vs. M/s Saharan Commission Agent ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Ms. Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate Ms. Navdeep Kaur Bhullar, Advocate and Ms. Tejasvi Luthra, Advocate for the petitioner. ***

¶4

Aggrieved by the acceptance of application under Section 311 CrPC by the trial Court vide which complainant is stated to have permitted for the third time to lead evidence, the accused has come up before this Court by filing the present revision petition.

¶5

It shall be appropriate to refer to Annexure P-2, which is an application filed by the respondent/complainant under Section 311 CrPC. What they want to tender is only the documents i.e. Form-B issued by Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board, Form-A & C issued by Registrar to Firms and Societies to complainant Firm and copy of cash/credit voucher dated 15.04.2021 maintained by complainant firm. Further they have stated that the accused will get the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant, it means they would not object to any cross-examination.

¶6

Reply to the application is attached as Annexure P-3. The objection is that a last opportunity has already been given and further lacunas cannot be allowed to be filled.

¶7

An analysis of the above clearly point out that what the complainant wanted to annex were those documents which were initially not required but the requirement had come because of the cross-examination as is apparent from the pleadings and documents attached in the petition. Further by the impugned order dated 05.03.2026, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class observed that in the cross-examination of the complainant specific questions were put to him regarding the bills pertaining to payments made to third party for purchase of

¶8

ANJU RANI 2026.04.21 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶9

��

¶10

CRR-914-2026 ��

¶11

fertilizer seeds and pesticides and the case was still at the stage of complainant’s evidence and cross-examination of CW2 in progress. Learned Judicial Magistrate rightly observed that the complainant was well within his right to lead evidence to clarify or rebut the doubts based during cross-examination by the accused. Further the complainant would have no other stage to clarify his stand by leading the evidence. An overall analysis of the situation does not find any illegality in the impugned order, rather the order is well founded, well reasoned and within the ambit of law.

¶12

Given above, it is not a case for even issuing notices. However, considering the dispute to be compoundable this Court wants the matter to be sent to the mediation to explore possibility of compromise. Let the concerned trial Court send the matter to mediation center, even if already referred for mediation but it is clarified that unnecessary time should not be granted for mediation.

¶13

Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. All pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

¶14

Apr 09^th,2026	(AN	OOP CHITKARA) JUDGE
Anju rani
Whether speaking/reasoned	YES
Whether reportable	NO

¶15

ANJU RANI 2026.04.21 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶16

��

Jaspreet Singh v. M/S Saharan Commission Agent, Fazilka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaspreet Singh v. M/S Saharan Commission Agent, Fazilka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parminder Kaur Vs Niranjan Singh

Natha Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Veeru Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rahul Vs Ravinder @ Ravi and Ors.

Laxman Dass Vs State of Haryana and Others

Pardeep Vohra Vs State of Haryana and Another