DARSHAN SINGH Vs. RAMAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dtd. 13/3/2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar whereby the application filed by the respondent (herein) -complainant, under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. of 1973 was allowed and respondent - complainant was permitted to place on record and prove the memo issued by the Punjab National Bank dtd. 4/7/2017, pertaining to the presentation of the cheque in question.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the complainant-respondent has already concluded his evidence before the trial Court subsequent to which the statement of the petitioner under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was duly recorded. Thereafter, the petitioner also closed his defence evidence on 24/2/2023 and the matter was listed for final arguments. On 1/3/2023, part arguments were heard and the case was adjourned to 3/3/2023. Learned counsel has submitted that at this belated stage and solely with a view to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution case, the complainant-respondent has moved an application under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to place and prove on record the memo issued by the Punjab National Bank dtd. 4/7/2017. Learned counsel asserts that though the petitioner filed a detailed reply opposing the said application but the Court below vide impugned order allowed the same. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of the Court to the observations made in the impugned order wherein it was noted that no suggestion had been put to the complainant during cross-examination regarding the non-production of the Punjab National Bank memo. It is strenuously argued by the learned counsel that such an observation is legally untenable as the accused cannot be expected to cross-examine a witness with respect to a document which had neither been proved nor exhibited on the record at the relevant stage. According to learned counsel, the impugned order is ex facie unsustainable in law, being based on mere presumptions and conjectures. It is further contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic, sketchy, non-reasoned, devoid of merit and thus, deserves to be set-aside. It has been further iterated that the additional evidence sought to be brought on record by virtue of Sec. 311 Cr.P.C., are not necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case and, therefore, the same is irrelevant. Further, no ground is made out by the applicant (before the trial Court) to bring forward the evidence by virtue of Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. at this belated stage. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the impugned order is non-speaking as the concluding paragraph of the order clearly indicates that the Court below has allowed the application without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent has opposed the instant petition by arguing that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. According to learned counsel, the aforesaid memo was not in the possession of the respondent - complainant at the time of filing of the complaint and therefore, the complaint was instituted without annexing this document. It is further averred that the said document is essential for the just and proper adjudication of the present complaint. Thus, dismissal of the instant petition is entreated for.