JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J (Oral) - Crl.Misc.No.13853 of 2013 Allowed as prayed for. Main case: 1. Complainant-Jagjit Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) assailing the order dated 20.02.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha thereby dismissing application Annexure P-3 moved by the petitioner-complainant under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for examining two witnesses, namely, Sardara Singh and Navdeep Gupta, Document Expert. 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 3. The petitioner has filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 IPC against the respondent-accused. According to complaint Annexure P-2, the accused had taken the loan from the complainant in the presence of Sardara Singh and had issued post dated cheque. 4. In application Annexure P-3, the petitioner-complainant alleged that earlier while the complainant was leading his evidence, he could not examine Sardara Singh due to his illness because he had undergone Bypass surgery. It was also alleged in the application that the accused has examined Document Expert Dr. Inderjit Singh in his defence evidence and, therefore, the complainant wants to examine Navdeep Gupta, Document Expert. 5. Counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 311 Cr.P.C. is of very wide amplitude and, therefore, application Annexure P-3 filed by the petitioner should have been allowed. It was also argued that the petitioner was not aware that respondent-accused would examine Document Expert in his evidence and, therefore, the petitioner could not examine Document Expert in his evidence at appropriate stage. Reference has also been made to unreported order dated 18.02.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by this Court in Civil Revn. No.5234 of 2009 (O&M), titled as Jagbir Singh Vs. Kanwar Singh. 6. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions and the same cannot be accepted. 7. The name of Sardara Singh was not even mentioned in the list of the witnesses by the complainant. Moreover, in application Annexure P-3, the complainant-petitioner took a false plea that he could not examine Sardara Singh, who had undergone Bypass surgery while the complainant-petitioner was leading his evidence. 7. The name of Sardara Singh was not even mentioned in the list of the witnesses by the complainant. Moreover, in application Annexure P-3, the complainant-petitioner took a false plea that he could not examine Sardara Singh, who had undergone Bypass surgery while the complainant-petitioner was leading his evidence. Perusal of impugned Annexure P-1 reveals that Sardara Singh had undergone the operation on 27.06.2008 whereas notice of accusation was served on the accused on 02.09.2009 and it was thereafter that the complainant-petitioner led his evidence. Thus, the complainant-petitioner came with patently false plea to secure order for examination of Sardara Singh as witness after the respondent-accused has led his defence evidence. No such indulgence could, therefore, be shown in favour of the petitioner. 8. As regards Document Expert, in the complaint case, the complainant cannot be permitted to lead evidence by way of rebuttal of defence evidence of the accused. If the petitioner wanted to examine the document expert, the petitioner should have done so while he was leading his evidence. Reference to order Annexure P-4 as precedent is completely mis-placed and absurd. The said order was passed in Civil Revision where the plaintiff was found to be having right of rebuttal evidence. In the criminal complaint case, the question of rebuttal evidence by the complainant does not arise. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that application Annexure P-3 filed by the petitioner-complainant has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court. The impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by the trial Court does not suffer from infirmity much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition is completely devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------