CRM-M/49411/2026 of ASHISH SALUJA Vs IQBAL DASS on 2 September 2026

1. Petition under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 assails order dated 24.08.2026 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur in complaint case bearing No. NACT-1093 of 2022 titled Iqbal Dass Vs. Ashish Saluja, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The complaint was filed by respondent-complainant Iqbal Singh against the petitioner on 28.10.2022 for dishonour of cheque No. 256645 dated 13.09.2022 amounting to ₹5,20,000/-. On the basis of preliminary evidence led, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur summoned the petitioner to face trial. Trial progressed and evidence of the complainant was concluded. Statement of the accused/petitioner under Section 351 BNSS was recorded on 18.11.2025. Petitioner/accused availed 8 effective opportunities for leading defence evidence and examined two witnesses in his defence. When he failed to conclude his evidence, defence evidence was closed by order of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur dated 20.04.2026 and the case was adjourned for arguments.

3. Order dated 20.04.2026 of learned JMIC, Ferozepur was assailed before this Court. Vide order dated 04.05.2026 in CRM-M-24717- 2026, petitioner/accused was granted one effective opportunity to appear before learned trial Court for his cross-examination, while setting aside order dated 20.04.2026. Petitioner appeared before learned trial Court, sought an adjournment on the ground that order dated 04.05.2026 was to be got rectified. Vide order dated 20.05.2026 of this Court, order dated 04.05.2026 was clarified to the effect that the trial Court would permit the petitioner/accused to lead defence evidence in accordance with law, by recording his examination-in-chief, cross-examination and to produce documents in support of his defence, subject to all just exceptions. On 25.05.2026 the next date of hearing, petitioner did not avail the opportunity to examine himself in defence, rather moved an application under Section 58/60 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and the case was adjourned for filing reply and thereafter, for consideration on the application for numerous dates. The application was finally dismissed vide order dated 18.08.2026. On 24.08.2026, documents Ex. D-1 to D-7 were tendered by petitioner/accused in his defence and an application Annexure P-10 was moved for summoning following witnesses:

1. Concerned Clerk of Punjab Gramin Bank, Branch Pindi, Tehsil Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur along with account opening form and account statement of complainant Iqbal Dass.

2. Concerned Clerk of Punjab Agriculture Development Bank, Branch Faridkot Road, Near Petrol Pump Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur along with account opening form and account statement of complainant Iqbal Dass.

3. Concerned Clerk of HDFC Bank, Branch Krishna Chowk, Old Grain Market, Guruharsahai Ferozepur along with account opening form and account statement of complainant Iqbal Dass.

4. Concerned Clerk of Punjab Co-operative Bank, Branch Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur along with account opening form and account statement of complainant Iqbal Dass.

4. Learned trial Court dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 24.08.2026 noticing conduct of the petitioner, observing that he only wanted to delay disposal of the case. The prayer was declined, petitioner/accused having failed to disclose the purpose of summoning the witnesses and the relevance of the record sought to be summoned. Aggrieved with the order, petitioner is before this Court by way of petition under Section 528 BNSS.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had no relationship with the complainant-respondent and he had denied the alleged ₹ transaction of loan of 5,20,000/- for domestic need. The witnesses proposed to be examined by the petitioner in defence evidence were summoned with the bank account statements of respondent for the relevant period, details of loans availed by him and the deposits made in the bank accounts. The evidence was relevant to assess and test financial capacity of the respondent, who failed to produce his account statements which were specifically demanded in cross-examination. The Jamabandi placed on record would show that various loans were obtained by respondent from Punjab Agriculture Development Bank, Punjab Gramin Bank who had mortgaged his land. The evidence was directly relevant to petitioner’s defence and petitioner did not want to delay the trial proceedings. Denial of opportunity to summon material witnesses would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. Relying upon Prince Layer Cum Hatchery Farm and Another Vs. Sanjeev Aggarwal 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 6506, Harmehtab Singh Rarewala Vs. Gaurav Jain and Another 2018 SCC Online P&H 4976, Madhusudhan Shukla Vs. State of UP and Another 2022 SCC Online AII 409 and Natash Singh Vs. CBI (2013) 5 SCC 741, it was argued that the Court had the widest discretionary powers under Section 348 BNSS to permit any evidence essential for just decision of the case and petitioner was entitled to fair trial and proper opportunity to bring on record all material evidence. For ready reference, Section 348 BNSS is reproduced as under: “Section 348 in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

348. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or re-call and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or re-call and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

6. It is manifest that the above provision confers the widest discretionary power on the Courts to meet the ends of justice. If evidence of a witness appears to the Court to be essential for just decision of the case, the Court can summon, examine, recall and re-examine any witness. However, like any other judicial discretion, the discretion under Section 348 BNSS is to be exercised by the Court on sound judicial principles and not capriciously. The discretion is to be exercised considering exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense. Before invoking power under Section 348 BNSS, the Court is required to satisfy itself that the evidence sought to be led is, in every respect, essential to arrive at a just conclusion. If proper evidence has not been adduced or relevant material is not brought on record, the Court is required to show magnanimity in permitting the mistakes to be rectified. It is equally well settled principle that power under Section 348 BNSS should be invoked by the Court only to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. Accused, no doubt, is entitled to fair trial. Concept of fair trial also involves protection of interest of the victim, the society at large. Rights of all stakeholders must be balanced.

7. In Natasha Singh Vs CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed, inter alia, as under: "8. Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the court to summon a material witness, or to examine a person present at "any stage" of "any enquiry", or "trial", or "any other proceedings" under Code of Criminal Procedure, or to summon any person as a witness, or to recall and re- examine any person who has already been examined if his evidence appears to it, to be essential to the arrival of a just decision of the case. Undoubtedly, Code of Criminal Procedure has conferred a very wide discretionary power upon the court in this respect, but such a discretion is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The power of the court in this context is very wide, and in exercise of the same, it may summon any person as a witness at any stage of the trial, or other proceedings. The court is competent to exercise such power even suo motu if no such application has been filed by either of the parties. However, the court must satisfy itself, that it was in fact essential to examine such a witness, or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case. *****

15. The scope and object of the provision is to enable the court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. An application Under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure must not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to the disadvantage of the Accused, or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the Accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the opposite party. Further, the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised, provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a witness, is germane to the issue involved. An opportunity of rebuttal however, must be given to the other party. The power conferred Under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure must therefore, be invoked by the court only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The very use of words such as "any court", "at any stage", or "or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings", "any person" and "any such person" clearly spells out that the provisions of this Section have been expressed in the widest possible terms, and do not limit the discretion of the court in any way. There is thus no escape if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. The determinative factor should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case."

8. Further in Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Another (22013) 14 SCC 461, Hon’ble Supreme Court culled out broad principles defining the scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. as under:

i) Whether the Court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a just decision of a case?

ii) The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated.

ii) If evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the power of the Court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person.

iv) The exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts, which will lead to a just and correct decision of the case.

v) The exercise of the said power cannot be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case, unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it apparent that the exercise of power by the Court would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice.

vi) The wide discretionary power should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.

vii) The Court must satisfy itself that it was in every respect essential to examine such a witness or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case.

viii) The object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. simultaneously imposes a duty on the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision.

ix) The Court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is necessary, not because it would be impossible to pronounce the judgment without it, but because there would be a failure of justice without such evidence being considered.

x) Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense should be the safe guard, while exercising the discretion. The Court should bear in mind that no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified.

xi) The Court should be conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. In that parity of reasoning, it would be safe to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost of the accused. The Court should bear in mind that improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary power, may lead to undesirable results.

xii) The additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of the party.

m) The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that is likely to be tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and also ensure that an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party.

xiv) The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. The Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right.”

9. Reverting to the facts of the case, petitioner, whose evidence was closed by Court order on 20.04.2026, challenged the order before this Court and was granted one effective opportunity to appear before learned trial Court for his examination. Subsequently, vide order dated 20.05.2026, this Court clarified its previous order and directed the trial Court to permit the petitioner opportunity to lead defence evidence in accordance with law i.e. recording of his examination-in-chief, cross-examination and to produce documents in support of defence. Order dated 20.05.2026 is not to be read in isolation but in conjunction with the previous order dated 04.05.2026, whereby only one effective opportunity to was to be given to the petitioner to lead defence evidence. It needs reiteration that petitioner had by then already availed 08 effective opportunities for leading defence evidence and examined two witnesses. After order dated 20.05.2026 was passed, petitioner failed to comply with the same and did not step into the witness box. Rather, to further delay the proceedings, on 25.05.2026, he moved an application under Section 58/60 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, which was finally disposed of on 18.08.2026.

10. The factors noticed by learned trial Court in the impugned order and the conclusion arrived at is based on correct appreciation and does not call for interference. Fair trial cannot translate to permitting petitioner/accused to delay the trial endlessly. Fair and expeditious trial is to be ensured to the victim/respondent as well and misuse of judicial proceedings cannot be encouraged. Already sufficient cross-examination has been put to the complainant regarding his financial capacity and he has admitted that his agricultural land was mortgaged with bank under limit of ₹25,00,000/-. He also produced bank account statement relating to his account in HDFC Bank. Learned trial Court has noticed that out of 04 bank Clerks sought to be examined, petitioner disclosed account number of only one account of HDFC Bank and even failed to disclose the purpose of summoning the documents and relevance thereof. The observation that appropriate inference would be drawn against the complainant for refusing production of his bank account statement, is correctly recorded. The evidence of 04 witnesses of various banks, sought to be brought on record has no relevance for determination of the case as financial capacity of the respondent can be adjudged from his own cross-examination. Even otherwise, his financial capacity is to be proved by the complainant and he is required to lead evidence to prove the same. This Court vide order dated 04.05.2026/20.05.2026 having afforded single opportunity to the petitioner to lead defence evidence, learned JMIC, Ferozepur could not have permitted the petitioner to summon record from 04 different banks to circumvent the order dated 04.05.2026/20.05.2026. In any case, financial incapacity of the respondent is not something which came to notice of petitioner when trial was almost complete. Discretion exercised by learned JMIC, Ferozepur is based on sound principles and evidence sought to be led by the petitioner cannot be termed “essential” to just decision of the case, without which, there would be failure of justice. Entire endeavour of the petitioner appears to be to delay the disposal of the case, which requires expeditious disposal, pending since 2022. There is no error apparent in order dated 24.08.2026 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur which is upheld.

11. Judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner were rendered on different facts and are not helpful.

12. The petition is dismissed.

13. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) 02.09.2026

JUDGE Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No