Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdial Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 21 July, 2014
CRR No. 481 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 481 of 2013
Date of Decision : 21.07.2014
Gurdial Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
Present: Mr. Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Kumar, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Virender Dhull, Advocate
for Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
R.P. Nagrath, J. (Oral)
Petitioner is the complainant on whose statement FIR No. 584 dated 15.10.2001 for offences under Sections 418, 420 and 423 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered at Police Station City Karnal. The petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court for placing on record the following documents:-
(i) Certified copy of sale deed dated 27.07.1999;
(ii) written statement in the Civil Suit No. 497/1991 between the respondent-accused and his father;
and
(iii) Judgment and decree in the said civil suit. Learned trial Court dismissed the said prayer on Jitender kumar 2014.07.22 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No. 481 of 2013 -2- 14.01.2013, primarily on the ground that these documents were not produced despite availing so many adjournments by the prosecution and evidence of the prosecution was closed. It was observed by learned trial Court that permitting these documents to be placed on record would tantamount the recalling of order passed by the predecessor of learned trial Court vide which the prosecution evidence was closed.
It is doubtful if the revision against said order passed by the trial Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. However, the instant revision is pending before this Court for past about 1 ½ year and a coordinate Bench of this Court had shown indulgence while issuing notice of motion on 18.02.2013 and at the same time staying further proceedings before the trial Court. In view of the nature of prayer made, I am of the view that this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. while disposing of this petition.
With the aforesaid view and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the State counsel and counsel for respondent No. 2, I find sufficient merit in the prayer made by the petitioner especially when learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner only intends to tender on record certified copies of aforesaid documents and not to examine any other witness to prove the documents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that these documents are essential for just decision of the case Jitender kumar 2014.07.22 15:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No. 481 of 2013 -3- because the civil suit was filed on the basis of a power of attorney which is attacked as a forged document.
In view of the facts as discussed above, the trial court ought to have exercised its discretion especially in respect of the documents which are required for just decision of the case even if the evidence was closed by order especially when the petitioner only wants to tender on record certified copies of aforesaid documents. It needs no reiteration that power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Magistrate at any stage of the trial.
In view of the above, the impugned order dated 14.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial Court is quashed and prosecution is permitted to tender certified copies of aforesaid documents without examining any oral witness and it is further directed that prosecution would be afforded only one opportunity in tendering these documents failing which the evidence would stand closed as already directed by the trial Court.
The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on the date already fixed.
July 21, 2014 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
jk JUDGE
Jitender kumar
2014.07.22 15:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh