Uttarakhand High Court
C528/1789/2026 of ASHOK PAL Vs UMESH KUMAR MITTAL on 13 August 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010143612026 C528/1789/2026 Ashok Pal --Applicant Versus Umesh Kumar Mittal --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Prashant Khanna,
SL.
No.
Date
Office
Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
or
directions
and
Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
UKHC010143612026
C528/1789/2026
Ashok Pal
--Applicant
Versus
Umesh Kumar Mittal
--Respondent
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Mr. Prashant Khanna, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The instant petition is preferred under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 by the present applicant Ashok Pal, S/o Late Dalpat Ram challenging the order passed by the learned A.C.J.M. 1st/Special Court (N.I. Act) Dehradun in Complaint Case No. 1348 of 2023, Umesh Kumar Mittal vs. Ashok Pal.
3. By the order impugned, the learned Trial Court on an application moved by the respondent/complainant under section 311 Cr.P.C. recall the applicant for further cross- examination and being aggrieved the instant petition is preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that twice the opportunity was closed and the complainant himself repeatedly seeking adjournment, therefore, there is no occasion to recall the witness for the purposes of cross- examination. He further submits that proceeding under Section 138 of N.I. Act is governed by the Special Act and is summary in nature and as per the mandate of Section 143(3) of the N.I. Act every such proceeding has to be expedited within six months from the date of presentation of complaint but in the present case the proceeding is pending since last three years and the respondent/complainant himself is seeking adjournment. The application is moved under Section 311 Cr.P.c. for recalling the applicant for cross-examination by taking a plea he is not medically fit though no supporting document in this regard is placed on record.
5. I perused the order impugned as well as complete order sheet and I do not find any perversity and illegality and even otherwise no prejudice is caused to the applicant since he is being recalled only for the purposes of cross- examination. Even otherwise for substantial justice at least complainant deserves to get a single opportunity to cross-examine, therefore, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with the direction to the Trial Court to give single opportunity to the respondent to cross-examine the applicant and if he fails to cross-examine on the date fixed then further opportunity should not be given and the Trial Court proceed with the matter and expedite the same keeping in view the mandate of Section 143(3) of N.I. Act.
6. With the observation and direction as above, the instant C528 application is disposed of.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
13-08-2026 Parul