KANUPRIYA SINHA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein seeks to challenge the order dated 31.1.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram, whereby the application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking permission to summon 16 witnesses in additional evidence has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that an FIR No. 376 dated 23.11.2013 was got registered by the petitioner under Sections 498-A, 323/34 IPC on the allegations that the petitioner complainant was subjected to physical assault by the accused persons mentioned therein, apart from misappropriation of Istridhan. After investigation report under Section 173 of the Code was prepared and submitted in the Court and the trial was set in motion. Respondent No.l was charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323 and 406 IPC. The prosecution evidence was closed on 28.8.2019 and after that the present application was filed by the petitioner seeking to summon 16 witnesses, who would testify to the facts that there were various incidents of assaults upon the complainant and misappropriation of istridhan. The said application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had earlier also filed an application under Section 311 of the Code and she could have sought permission to summon these witnesses at that point of time, but she did not do so. The application earlier filed was dismissed by order dated 8.12.2018 and there was an order dated 12.9.2018 passed by this Court directing the trial court to conclude the trial at the earliest by giving short adjournments.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein contends that there are observations of the court which would reflect that "the evidence of ASI Sandeep Ahlawat and doctor of Max Hospital can be somewhat relevant as it would show the conduct of complainant after the alleged harassment" but despite the said observations the application has been dismissed. It is argued that provision of Section 311 of the Code read in its entirety would show that the Court is empowered to summon a material witness or examine a person present at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under CrPC or to summon any person as a witness, or to recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined, if his evidence appears to it, to be essential to the just decision of a case. It is argued that there are catena of judgments which laid down the principle regarding summoning of a witness and underline the wide powers of the Court under Section 311 of the Code to summon any witness at any stage of the trial. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgments rendered in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Anr vs State of Gujarat and Ors 2004 (4) SCC 158, Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs State of Bihar and Anr 2013(14) SCC 461, Natasha Singh v. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741 and Manju Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 2019 decided on 16.4.2019.