The court has the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon material witnesses or examine a person present in the court at any stage of inquiry, and the exercise of this power should ensure a just decision of the case.

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. This petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 27.4.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Rohru, H.P. in Complaint Case No. 69/3 of 2014 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereby trial Court, in an application filed on behalf of complainant/respondent to place additional documents on record, has permitted to produce the documents.

2. Impugned order has been assailed on the ground that application preferred by complainant/respondent was filed under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 C.P.C, whereas complaint filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act is to be governed by the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and thus the impugned order passed by the trial Court is without jurisdiction, as he was not competent to entertain the application for placing on record additional documents under the provisions of CPC in a Criminal Complaint. It is further submitted that it is not a case of mentioning wrong provision of law, but is a case of applying Civil Procedure Code in a Criminal Case.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order for the reasons assigned therein and has relied upon pronouncement of the Apex Court in Mina Lalita Baruwa Vs. State of Orissa and others, (2013) 16 SCC 173 for explaining the powers of Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and has also referred a judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case titled Anil Chauhan Vs. Education Society, Mandi reported in Latest HLJ 2014 (HP), 1080, wherein in almost identical case, order of trial Court allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been upheld.

4. So far as contention of petitioner that trial Court has applied Civil Procedure Code in a Criminal Complaint, is not tenable for the reasons that at the time of passing impugned order, trial court has specifically dealt with this issue and has observed in the impugned order that Court does not have power to allow an application under Order 7 Rule 4 C.P.C in a complaint case and the provisions of C.P.C. are not applicable therein. Thereafter, and rightly so, he has returned the findings that the application cannot be dismissed solely on the ground that wrong provisions of law has been mentioned.

5. It is not a case that Court was not empowered at all even under Cr.P.C. to allow the prayer. In the cause title of the application, placed on record, the application has been stated to have been filed under the provisions of C.P.C. but it is not a case that the trial Court was not empowered to allow to produce additional documents on record under Cr.P.C. The trial Court has rightly observed that Section 311 Cr.P.C. deals with the power of the Court to summon material witness or examine a person present in the Court at any stage of inquiry. The Apex Court in Mina Lalita Baruwa's case supra has held that ingredients of Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the trial Court to arrive at just decision to resort to an appropriate measure befitting the circumstances in the matter of examination of witnesses.

6. Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in Anil Chauhan's case supra has held as under:

"12. None of the parties has referred to the later judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raja Ram Prasad Yadav versus State of Bihar and another, (2013) 14 SCC 461 wherein the entire law on the subject has been discussed and, therefore, it is not necessary to fall back on the judgments of this Court or the earlier judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Natasha Singh (supra) heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent since this judgment also stands considered in Raja Ram's case (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the powers under Section 311 of the Code to summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and reexamine any person already examined, can be