CRM-M/38061/2026 of PAWAN KUMAR Vs OMBIR BALHARA on 16 July 2026

1. Nagarik Su 11.05.2026 COMA-297 titled ‘Pawa

2. was compla Instruments application and examin Branch, M respondent/ 8061-2026(O&M) HE PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH

CRM

Date mar

V/S hara

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHA Mr. Yudhvir Dalal, Advocate, Ms. Sunaina, Advocate, Mr. Sahil Kumar Advocate and Mr. Anshul, Advocate for the p

**** SINGH NAGPAL, J. Prayer in the petition under uraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for of learned Sub Divisional Judi 7-2018 dated 29.08.2018, under an Kumar v. Ombir’. Learned counsel for the petiti ainant in a complaint under Sec s Act, pending before learned S under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seek ne Bank Manager/official of Mumbai with bank accou /accused from August, 2016 to S

A HIGH COURT AT H M-M-38061-2026(O&M) of decision: 16.07.2026

…Petitioner

…Respondent ALINI SINGH NAGPAL d petitioner. r Section 528 of Bhartiya quashing of order dated icial Magistrate, Gohana, in Sections 138/14 of NI Act, ioner submits that petitioner ction 138 of the Negotiable DJM, Gohana. He filed an king permission to summon ICICI Bank, MIG Colony unt statements of the September, 2016 along with certificate learned trial

3. Rs.60 lacs paid back R cheque of R was subsequ witness, fil 31.10.2017 when a sum petitioner th by responde of responde illustrate tru Court in ‘P to Appeal vs. State o counsel sub widest pow when the c power was application

4. conferred u power is to 8061-2026(O&M) under Section 65B of the In l court erroneously declined. Learned counsel submits tha was advanced to the responden Rs.2,50,000/- in the year 2017 thr Rs.28 lacs towards part paymen uently dishonoured. Responden led his bank account statemen and withheld account statement m of Rs.4,50,000/- was depos hrough cash deposit machine. T ent and it was essential to bring ent for the month of August 20 ue facts. Relying upon the dec P. Chhaganalal Daga vs. M. Sa (Crl.) No.2636-2637/2001 and of Bihar & Anr.’ SLP (Crl) bmits that Section 311 Cr.P.C wers to summon any witness, at case was fixed for defence evid absolute and it was the duty for just decision of the case. There can be no denying that pon the Court by Section 311 Cr o be exercised judiciously and n dian Evidence Act, which at although a total sum of nt as loan, respondent only rough Bank and later, issued nt of the loan amount which nt, when appeared as defence nt only from 01.04.2017 to t pertaining to the year 2016 sited in his account by the These facts were suppressed g on record bank statements 016 and September 2016 to cisions of Hon’ble Supreme anjay Shaw, Special Leave d ‘Rajaram Prasad Yadav No.2400 of 2011, learned C. invested the Court with any stage of the case, even dence and arguments. The of the Court to allow the wide discretionary power is r.P.C. At the same time, the not arbitrarily. The Court is required to order to arri

5. lacs was ins evidence. S recorded an appeared as 01.04.2017 when petitio account thro in the impu his fourth ap evidence an complainan respondent, document s summoned the light of favour of th

6. expeditious cause any miscarriage the reason t respondent/ 8061-2026(O&M) be satisfied that the evidence so ive at a just decision. The case which pertains to dis stituted in the year 2018. Compla Statement of the accused under S nd when the case was fixed for s his witness and brought on rec to 30.10.2017, omitting the ba oner claims to have deposited a ough cash deposit machine. Lear ugned order that the application pplication, under Section 311 Cr nd the matter was pending since nt did not opt to bring on rec showing transfer of funds to the sought to be brought on record a cannot be termed essential for f presumption under Section 13 he holder of the cheque. The case, which is almost disposal and non examination prejudice to the petitioner/ e of justice. Additional evidence that the complainantss desires s /accused has withheld part of ought to be led is essential in shonour of cheque of Rs.28 ainant led and concluded his Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also r defence evidence, accused ord his bank statement from ank statement for year 2016 sum of Rs.4,50,000/- in his rned Trial Court has noticed filed by the petitioner, was r.P.C. for leading additional e 2018. For eight long years, ord Bank statement of the e tune of Rs.4,50,000/-. The and the witness sought to be just decision of the case in 9 of the Instruments Act in eight years old, requires n of the witness would not /complainant, resulting in e cannot be allowed only for so or for the reason that the f his statement of account.

Invocation not meet th learned Sub interference

07.

08. of. 16.07.2026 Kapil

8061-2026(O&M) of the power under Section 311 he ends of justice. Impugned b Divisional Judicial Magistrate, e by invoking inherent jurisdictio There is no merit in the petition Pending miscellaneous applica (SH

Whether speaking/reasone Whether reportable

1 Cr.P.C. in the case would order dated 11.05.2026 of , Gohana, thus, does not call on of the Court. n which stands dismissed. ation, if any, stands disposed HALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE ed : Yes/No : Yes/No