VISHWAS PANDEY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for quashing of impugned order dtd. 7/7/2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad, in case FIR No. 761 dtd. 9/11/2018 registered under Sec. 302 IPC and Sec. 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Mujesar, District Faridabad, whereby application moved by the prosecution under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning additional witnesses has been allowed.

(2.) Briefly, the petitioner earlier was working in Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Limited, Faridabad. On the basis of one complaint made against him of having assaulted a colleague, he was charge-sheeted and inquiry was held against him in which he was held guilty. Thereafter, the petitioner was discharged from the service. The complaint of assault was made by Sandeep Kumar Singh which was forwarded to the Management by deceased-Arindam Pal and inquiry was conducted by Subhomoy Majumder. Aggrieved with the inquiry report, the petitioner shot dead Arindam Pal in the premises of the company. During the course investigation, the proceedings of the inquiry conducted against the petitioner were obtained by the Investigating Officer, but due to oversight, only some of the documents pertaining to the petitioner and his employment were placed on record but other documents could not be placed on record. The prosecution through learned Public Prosecutor moved an application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. to examine Sandeep Kumar Singh, who was assaulted by the petitioner, Sh. Subhomoy Majumder, who conducted the inquiry against the petitioner and Sh. Anand Vivek, Head (HR), Tata Steel Processing and Distribution Limited, as additional witnesses, which was allowed by the trial Court vide order impugned herein. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia contends that the trial Court has erred in allowing the application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dtd. 7/7/2022 (Annexure P-4) as the same was filed just to delay the matter. He further submits that the provisions of Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. should not be allowed to be used to fill lacunae in the case. The names of aforesaid additional witnesses who were sought to be examined by the prosecution were never mentioned in the list of witnesses, at the time of preparation of challan and now after a gap of 04 years, the prosecution wants to examine the said additional witnesses. The prosecution in order to prove its case had moved the application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning and examining the aforesaid witnesses, after recording of statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel contends that a great prejudice will be caused to the petitioner, in case, the prosecution is allowed to lead additional evidence at such a belated stage and to fill up the lacuna. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments in (i) CRM-M Nos. 30860, 30863 and 30864-2017, Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 28/1/2020 and (ii) Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2019, Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, decided on 4/1/2019.