IMPORTANT POINT
The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously and for strong and valid reasons to prevent failure of justice.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by learned MM (NI Act), Saket Courts, New Delhi in CC NI Act 546/2022 whereby respondents' application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C to summon certain material witnesses came to be allowed.

2. Briefly stated, the present proceedings arise out of a complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 NI Act. Cognizance of the said complaint was taken on 09.03.2022, whereafter notice was framed against the respondents/accused on 24.09.2022. Complainant's evidence commenced on 15.04.2023 wherein Authorized Representative of the complainant company was examined as CW-1. The respondents' statement under Section 313 was recorded Cr.P.C on 17.05.2023 whereafter, on the said date, respondent No.2 examined himself as DW-1. On that date itself, a list of witnesses, which the respondents wished to examine in their defence, was filed. The Trial Court issued summons to the witnesses mentioned at Serial No.2 i.e. `concerned officials of HDFC Bank Ltd.'. The court then proceeded to hear final arguments on 02.08.2023. Subsequent to this, the subject application under Section 311 Cr.P.C came to be filed by the respondents. By the said application, the respondents sought to examine the following persons:

"(i) Mr. Jagdeep Singh, aged about 41 years, son of Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Assistant Manager, C/o M/s Sara International Pvt. Ltd., Noble Enclave, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana along with records.

(ii) Concerned police officer of P.S. Division 8, Ludhiana along with records.

(iii) Concerned official(s) or Manager or both of HDFC Bank Ltd.,1284/95, Sunder Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana-141007 (Punjab) i.e., Drawer's Bank along with records.

(iv) Expert who may conduct verification of the purported signature of the Accused on the cheque in question along with records.

(v) The driver and the concerned official(s) or Manager or both of the delivery agency through which the goods were purportedly delivered at the location as alleged by the complainant along with records."

3. The scope and power of a Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C is well established and has been crystallized through judicial pronouncements. It has been held time and again that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised to determine the truth and render a just decision after discovery of all the relevant facts and obtaining proof thereof. The said power has to be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily. Further, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. ought not to be allowed merely to fill up the lacuna/gaps in the case of either party or to give any unfair advantage to one of them. The application has to be considered on the touchstone whether the evidence sought to be produced is germane to the issue involved or not. In other words, the court has to exercise its powers, after applying its judicial mind, and in order to meet the ends of justice, and that too, for strong and valid reasons. The provision is cast in widest possible terms which is evident from the expressions used in the section i.e. `any Court' `at any stage' of `any inquiry or trial or other proceedings' may summon and/or recall and re-examine `any person'. [Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 6 SCC 203]

4. In Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat, (2017) 9 SCC 340, the Supreme Court has observed as under:

"xxx

17. In order to enable the court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 311 are enacted whereunder any court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re-examine any person already examined who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute. The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused