Petitioner sought quashing of Trial Court order allowing recording of respondent-complainant witness statements under S. 311 Cr.P.C. HC dismissed petition finding application bonafide and essential for justice, but imposed costs due to lack of diligence.
Quashing petition dismissed; Respondent/complainant ordered to pay cost of Rs. 25,000/- to Petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2023:PHHC:059628
--1--
CRM-M-15555-2018 (O&M) 203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-15555-2018
Reserved on :- 13.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement :- 26.04.2023
Rita
...Petitioner
vs.
Pawan Kumar Goel
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Narayan Prasad Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ravi Dutt, Advocate for the respondent.
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
SONIKA 2023.04.27 10:00 arguments. However, on 13.03.2018, an application under section 311 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
2023:PHHC:059628
CRM-M-15555-2018 (O&M) --2-Cr.P.C. was moved by complainant, for recording the statement of complainant and his wife Smt. Anita Goel, which was allowed by learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 20.03.2018.
i. Swapan Kumar Chatterjee V/S Central Bureau of
ii. Harbinder Singh Versus Jaspal Singh in CRM-M-17282-2014 decided on 06.01.2015
iii. Niketan Dilip Paldhe Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. in Criminal Writ Petition 3369 of 2022 Bombay High Court
SONIKA 2023.04.27 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
2023:PHHC:059628
CRM-M-15555-2018 (O&M) --3-delay on the part of the complainant. He explains that complainant and his wife’s statement could not be recorded only on account of an inadvertent mistake, and therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly allowed this application. In support of his submissions, he places reliance upon:
i. Court on its own motion v. Amit Kumar Jain , (P&H)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 196250 reported as 2009(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 331
ii. Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell, Delhi , (S.C.) : Law Finder Doc Id # 33365
iii. P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of A.P. (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 376698
SONIKA 2023.04.27 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
2023:PHHC:059628
CRM-M-15555-2018 (O&M)
--4--
“8. Lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. The advantage of it should normally go to the accused in the trial of the case, but an oversight in the management of the prosecution cannot be treated as irreparable lacuna. No party in a trial can be fore-closed from correcting errors. If proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. After all, function of the criminal court is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better.”
In "Hanuman Ram v. The State of Rajasthan , (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 149657", Hon’ble Apex Court held that object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. Relevant para thereof is reproduced as below:
“7. The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the Court to summon a witness under the Section merely because the evidence supports the case for the prosecution and not that of the accused. The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and empowers Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings, trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant expression that occurs is "at any stage of inquiry or
SONIKA 2023.04.27 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
2023:PHHC:059628
CRM-M-15555-2018 (O&M)
--5--
trial or other proceeding under this Code". It is, however, to be borne in mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the Court on summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously, as the wide the power the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind.”
| (HARKESH MANUJA) |
|---|
| 26.04.2023 JUDGE |
| sonika |
| Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No |
| Whether reportable : Yes/No |
SONIKA 2023.04.27 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order allowing the recording of prosecution witness statements under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Whether the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed in bonafide without willful delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee V/S Central Bureau of InvestigationDistinguished¶47
2019(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 162 S.C.
Harbinder Singh Versus Jaspal SinghDistinguished¶47
CRM-M-17282-2014
Niketan Dilip Paldhe Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr.Distinguished¶47
Criminal Writ Petition 3369 of 2022
Court on its own motion v. Amit Kumar JainExplained¶47
2009(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 331
Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell, DelhiApplied¶47
(S.C.)
P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of A.P.Referred
(SC)
Hanuman Ram v. The State of RajasthanApplied
(SC)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rita
Pawan Kumar Goel
Harkesh ManuJA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
