9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication moved by the accused was allowed on the same day vide order dated 10.04.2014, perusal whereof reveals that it was allowed in a routine manner. 3. Aggrieved of the order dated 10.04.2014, whereby application moved by the accused was allowed in a routine manner, it was challenged by way of filing of petition under Section 561-A Cr. PC and this Court vide order dated 21.04.2017 allowed this petition No. 68/2015 and the impugned order dated 10.04.2014 was quashed, directing the petitioners to file objections within a period of 15 days from the date of the order with advance copy thereof to learned counsel for the accused and the learned trial Magistrate was directed to make an endeavour to hear and decide the application within next 15 days. 4. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the complainants/petitioners filed objections to the application field by the accused/respondent asserting therein that Nazir Ahmad Joo and Manager J&K Bank Branch Chadoora have been examined by the complainants as their witnesses and the accused had cross examined them before being discharged, whereas Advocate A.R.Hanjura, who was the counsel of the complainants, was not required to be exami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. But in the instant case the counsel for the accused has with an intention of delaying the proceedings included the name of those witnesses who have been mentioned in the list of witnesses produced on behalf of the complainants as their witnesses, which action is not only illegal but is barred under the procedure governing the trial of cases under N.I Act 1881. It is stated that the learned Magistrate while passing the order dated 26.05.2018 has erred gravely, since the power conferred upon the court under Section 540Cr. PC is to be exercised only to advance the cause of justice and not to cause the failure of justice. However, in the instant case, learned Magistrate rather than advancing the cause of justice of the petitioners has paved way for failure of justice by allowing the accused to vitiate the whole proceedings. Furthermore, it is stated that the trial court vide impugned order has issued process in a most mechanical and perfunctory manner against the complainants' witnesses clearly and manifestly in grave abuse of process of law, hence prays for quashment of the impugned order. 8. Pursuant to the notice, respondent has filed objections to the petition, wherein responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y has been credited to the account of accused for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Another direction was to produce specimen signatures and seal impression of accused reserved with the Bank and details about the refusal of disposal of cheques, besides to give details of any house loan facility to the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that these questions have been already asked to these witnesses while being examined as complainants' witnesses during the cross examination by the accused and after being satisfied the witnesses had been discharged. He has further argued that Patwari Halqa Wathora was also not required to be examined by the defence, as for the disposal of the complaint under Section 138 N.I.Act, the property of the accused is irrelevant, therefore, Patwari Halqa Wathora has also been wrongly summoned by the court below. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that the trial court has rightly allowed the application of the respondentaccused, as Nazir Ahmad Joo, Manager J&K Bank Branch Chadoora and Patwari Halqa Wathora were important witnesses to narrate the facts so as to determine the dispute between the parties. He has furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed during trial, it could not be legally tenable to call these witnesses on behalf of the opposite party. At the most these witnesses could have been summoned as complainants' witnesses for their further cross examination, if same was required. Learned Magistrate, in the considered opinion of this Court, has misdirected himself to allow the application of the respondent-accused to the extent of calling CWs-Nazir Ahmad Joo and Manager J&K Bank Branch Chadoora to be examined by the accused as his witnesses. It is yet to be heard that a witness can depose on both sides. It is also not clear as to what the Patwari Halqa Wathora has to prove about the details of the property of the accused when the accused himself can do that and for a complaint under Section 138 N.I Act, the property, if any of the accused-respondent, is not relevant at all. 16. On a perusal of the statements recorded by the court of two witnesses already examined by the complainants and sought to be examined by the accused, the queries that are cited to be proved have already put to them while being cross examined by the accused. It appears that the accused, not only to delay the trial of the complaint against him bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
