ADITYA SARDA Vs. ARJUN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of the petitioner against the impugned order dtd. 23/11/2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, New Delhi whereby the application under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. preferred by the complainant was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the petitioner had filed a complaint under Sec. 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code against the respondent. Thereafter, notice under Sec. 251 of Cr.P.C. was served to the respondent in the year 2012. The examination-in-chief of the complainant had commenced on 24/4/2018. The right of the respondent to further cross-examine the complainant was closed vide order dtd. 1/6/2018. Thereafter, the respondent had filed an application under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court for recalling of witness which was allowed vide order dtd. 28/7/2018, after which the complainant was partly cross-examined and finally discharged on 14/12/2018. The petitioner herein had moved an application for summoning of additional witnesses on 18/1/2019, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that there are certain witnesses that may have relevant records which are relevant to the case and an application under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the learned Trial on 23/11/2019 which was dismissed vide order dtd. 23/11/2019. The present petition has been filed against the said order wherein the petitioner prays that the impugned order dtd. 23/11/2019 be set aside and the witnesses be allowed to examine.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate that the examination of additional witnesses is central to the case and essential for proper and just decision of the case. It is further stated that all the witnesses that were sought to be produced before the learned Trial Court were independent witnesses and petitioner had no control over their appearance. It is argued that the mandate of Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. is to bring to light the relevant facts that may be important for proper adjudication of trial. The complainant had filed the application under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court for summoning of U. Srinivas Rao, Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Golf Links, New Delhi and Mr. S.S. Tanwar, Assistant General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Golf Links, New Delhi as the records in relations to letter dtd. 15/1/2010, 21/1/2010, 5/2/2010 and 27/2/2010 which were written by the accused were relevant to the facts of the present case and essential for establishing the case of the prosecution. It is also stated that it had come to the knowledge of the complainant that aforementioned witnesses had relevant records in their possession at a later stage and the complainant had preferred to file the application immediately. The learned Trial Court had dismissed the application without considering the importance of said witnesses for fair adjudication of the case, and thus, the said impugned order be set aside.