Allowed

Sarika v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Nov 2012CRM-M/10343/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the petition challenging the dismissal of an application to summon the investigating officer. Holding his evidence essential for a just decision, it ordered the grant of one opportunity to the prosecution to examine him as a witness.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.3.2011 dismissing the Section 311 Cr.P.C. application was set aside and the prosecution was allowed one opportunity to examine the investigating officer.

Sarika Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M-10343 of 2011

¶4

Date of Decision:05.11.2012

Sarika

.....Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present:Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl. AG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

SABINA, J.

¶15

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, `the Cr.P.C') challenging orders dated 21.12.2010 (Annexure P.2) and dated 22.3.2011 (Annexure P.5).

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the evidence of the prosecution was closed by order vide impugned order dated 21.12.2010 (Annexure P.2). Thereafter, an application was moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C for summoning the investigating officer. Vide impugned order dated 22.3.2011 (Annexure P.3), the said application was dismissed. Learned counsel has further submitted that the trial Court had erred in dismissing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The Court has the power to summon any witness whose evidence was necessary for just decision of the case. Learned counsel has also submitted that only one opportunity be granted to the prosecution to examine the investigating officer. He has further submitted that the investigation officer

¶17

-2-

¶18

Crl. Misc. No. M-10343 of 2011

¶19

could not appear before the Court on 7.8.2010 because on that date, he had gone on training.

¶20

Learned State Counsel on the other hand has not opposed the

¶21

petition.

¶22

None has appeared on behalf of respondents No.2 to 5 despite

¶23

service.

¶24

Section 311 Cr.P.C reads as under:-

¶25

“ 311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. - Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

¶26

Thus, as per the above provision, the Court had the power to summon any witness if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. In the present case, the Investigating Officer had been duly summoned and had sought an adjournment on 7.8.2010. The evidence of the Investigating Officer would be necessary for the just decision of the case as the Investigating Officer would be in a position to depose with regard to the investigation conducted by him. Accused will get an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

¶27

In these circumstances, the trial Court had erred in dismissing the application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. In the

¶28

-3-

¶29

Crl. Misc. No. M-10343 of 2011

¶30

facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient to allow one opportunity to the prosecution to examine the Investigating Officer as a witness.

¶31

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.3.2011 (Annexure P.5), whereby application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C was dismissed, is set aside. Consequently, the application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C for permission to examine Investigating Officer – Assistant Sub Inspector Narain Mishra as a prosecution witness is allowed. It is clarified that only one opportunity be afforded to the prosecution to examine the said witness. Thereafter, the trial Court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law.

¶32

November 05, 2012 ( SABINA ) renu JUDGE

Sarika v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarika v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Barjinder Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Darshan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Surjeet Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Mukhtiar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Tipinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.