Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 11 March, 2026
CRM-M-38687-2022 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
121
CRM-M-38687-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.03.2026
Neha Ahuja Raheja
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON
Present:- Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate and
Mr. Arun Biriwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Aanchal Thakur, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
NEERJA K. KALSON, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 27.07.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate1st Class, Panchkula, whereby the case was preponed and the complainant was directed to appear again for further cross-examination, despite the earlier proceedings indicating completion of her evidence.
2. Briefly stated, the case was fixed on 05.05.2022 for recording the evidence of the prosecution. On the said date, the complainant appeared before the Court and her examination-in-chief was recorded. She was partly cross-examined before the lunch break. After the lunch break, further lengthy cross-examination was conducted. However, as the court time was SATYAWAN 2026.03.13 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38687-2022 (O&M) 2 over, the remaining cross-examination was deferred. The zimni order dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure P-1) reflects that the complainant had been subjected to substantial cross-examination on that day.
Thereafter, on 16.07.2022, the complainant again appeared before the trial Court and her further cross-examination was conducted. The order dated 16.07.2022 (Annexure P-3 & P-4) clearly records that two witnesses were present and were examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively. The complainant was examined as PW1 and another witness, namely Saraswati, was examined as PW2. Both witnesses were cross-examined and the order was passed in the presence of the parties and their respective counsel. The order sheet does not reflect any objection raised by either side regarding the completion of the evidence or the manner in which the proceedings were conducted.
3. However, subsequently on 27.07.2022 , the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panchkula preponed the case, which was otherwise fixed for 17.09.2022, and passed the impugned order (Annexure P-6) directing that the complainant be bound down for further cross-examination. It is not disputed that neither the complainant nor her counsel was present on that date. The impugned order was passed without issuing any notice to the complainant or her counsel regarding the preponement of the date.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the complainant had already been subjected to lengthy cross-examination on 05.05.2022 as well as on 16.07.2022, and the record of the proceedings clearly demonstrates that her cross-examination stood concluded on 16.07.2022.
It is further argued that once the Court had proceeded to record SATYAWAN 2026.03.13 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38687-2022 (O&M) 3 the statement of PW-2 after examining PW-1, it would be highly improbable that the cross-examination of PW-1 had remained incomplete. It has also been submitted that the order dated 16.07.2022 was passed in the presence of the accused and their counsel, and no objection was raised at that stage. According to the petitioner, the action of the trial Court in preponing the matter and directing further cross-examination amounts to recalling the earlier order without following the procedure known to law. It has further been submitted that neither any oral nor written request was made on behalf of the accused or the prosecution seeking further opportunity to cross- examine the complainant. In case the accused desired to further cross- examine the complainant, the proper course available to them was to file an appropriate application under the provisions of law seeking recall of the witness and specifying the reasons necessitating such recall. It is also contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as neither the complainant nor her counsel were given notice before the case was preponed from 17.09.2022 to 27.07.2022.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panchkula is within the powers of the Court and does not call for interference.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.
7. The order dated 05.05.2022 indicates that the complainant was examined-in-chief and was subjected to cross-examination which continued even after the lunch break. The proceedings further show that on 16.07.2022 further cross-examination of the complainant was conducted and another SATYAWAN 2026.03.13 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38687-2022 (O&M) 4 witness was examined as PW-2. The zimini order dated 16.07.2022 (Annexure P-5) specifically records the presence of the parties and their counsel and still no objection was raised at that stage.
8. Once the Court had proceeded to record the evidence of PW-2 after examining PW1, the natural inference is that the cross-examination of PW1 had been completed. Judicial orders recorded in the order sheet carry a presumption of correctness and cannot be lightly disregarded. In the absence of any contemporaneous objection or record indicating that the cross-examination of PW-1 remained incomplete, the proceedings dated 16.07.2022 (Annexure P-3) prima facie demonstrate that the evidence of PW-1 had been concluded.
The subsequent action of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panchkula on 27.07.2022 in preponing the matter from 17.09.2022 to 27.07.2022 assumes significance. The record does not show that any request was made by either party seeking preponement of the date. It is also not evident that any notice was issued to the complainant or her counsel before passing the impugned order. Admittedly, the complainant and her counsel were not present on the said date.
9. Although a criminal court possesses wide powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon, recall or re-examine any witness at any stage of the trial if such evidence appears necessary for the just decision of the case, such power must be exercised judiciously and for recorded reasons. The exercise of such power ordinarily arises upon an application by a party or upon the Court forming a considered opinion that recall is necessary. In the present case, the impugned order does not indicate that the learned Magistrate invoked the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. or SATYAWAN 2026.03.13 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38687-2022 (O&M) 5 recorded any reasons as to why further cross-examination of the complainant was necessary.
10. It is also well settled that a criminal court does not possess the power to review or recall its own concluded orders except in the manner permitted by statute. Once the evidence of a witness has been recorded and the Court has proceeded further in the trial, reopening that stage without following the procedure recognized by law would not be permissible.
Another significant aspect of the matter is that the case was preponed without issuing notice to the complainant. Such action affects the rights of a party participating in the proceedings and therefore, ought not to have been undertaken without affording an opportunity of hearing. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice.
11. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that a transfer application had been moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the matter was subsequently transferred to another Court after hearing both sides. However, the proceedings in the case are currently stayed by this Court. The said development, however, does not cure the legal infirmity in the impugned order.
12. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, whereby the matter was preponed and the complainant was directed to appear again for cross-examination, cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside.
13. However, it is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. In the event that either of the parties SATYAWAN 2026.03.13 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38687-2022 (O&M) 6 considers it necessary to further examine, cross-examine or re-examine any witness, including the complainant, it shall always be open to such party to move an appropriate application before the trial Court in accordance with law. Likewise, if the trial Court itself forms an opinion that recall or further examination of any witness is essential for the just decision of the case, it shall be at liberty to exercise such jurisdiction after recording reasons and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is, however, made clear that such course must be adopted strictly in accordance with the procedure recognized by law and not in the manner in which the impugned order dated 27.07.2022 came to be passed.
14. Consequently, the impugned order dated 27.07.2022 is set aside. The trial Court shall proceed with the trial from the stage as it stood after recording of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, in accordance with law.
15. The present petition stands allowed accordingly.
(NEERJA K. KALSON)
11.03.2026 JUDGE
Satyawan
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
SATYAWAN
2026.03.13 15:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document