The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application for additional evidence under Section 311 C.P.C. should have reasonable grounds and the proposed evidence should be relevant to the complaint. The court also considered the previous dismissal of similar applications and the lack of clarity on the relevancy of proposed evidence.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the order dated 14.8.2019 passed by the trial Court vide which the application filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 311 C.P.C. in Criminal Complaint No. CHI/31547/2013 DATED 19.10.2011 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed the aforesaid complaint with the allegations that in the year 1967 he had taken two shops from accused/respondent No.2 on rent. Later on, in the year 1981, the brother of the petitioner, namely Suraj Parkash and Chand Parkash Chhabra (complainant-respondent No.1) joined him in the business and they created a firm M/s Chhabra Sweets and Cafeteria. Later on, a dispute arose amongst the brothers with regard to the firm which led to civil and criminal litigation between the three brothers/their LRs.

3. It is further stated that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration, separate possession and rendition of accounts against his two brothers on 8.1.1995, which was decided in favour of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 4.3.2004 and appeal filed before the lower appellate Court was dismissed on 27.7.2005 and the appeal, i.e. RSA No.96 of 2006, filed by the brother/LRs of the is pending admitted. It is further stated that in the year 2009, the petitioner came to know about the forged agreement dated 24.10.2001 which was allegedly executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1 in which the respondent No.1 claimed himself to be in exclusive tenant of the shop. Later on, a suit for injunction was filed by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2 which was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 14.2.2007.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the criminal compliant is filed which is pending before the trial Court.

5. At this stage, when the prosecution evidence was closed as well as the defence evidence was also closed and the case is fixed for final arguments, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with the allegations that it has come to his notice that there is another agreement dated 22.10.2001 which was executed between the LRs of deceased brother of petitioner, namely, Suraj Parkash and respondent No.2 in which, the LRs of Suraj Parkash allegedly handed over the tenancy of the shop to respondent No.2. Therefore, this is a forged agreement and need to be produced on record for the just and fair conclusion of the trial Court.

6. The trial Court vide impugned order 14.8.2019 dismissed the application. The operative part of the order reads as under :-

"4. Perusal of the file shows that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 19.10.2012 and the accused were summoned to face trial under Section 420/465/467/471 I PC vide order dated 31.1.2013. Therefore, pre-charge evidence was led by the complainant and charge were framed against the accused persons on 8.3.2017. Thereafter, the evidence was led by the complainant and now the case was fixed for arguments after completion of defence evidence. Thereafter, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the complainant. As per the file, the present application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is fourth application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the complainant since the start of present case. The complainant had moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. two times earlier after completion of after charge evidence and he did not succeed in the same. He also moved an application under Section 294 Cr.P.C. prior to the present application and same was dismissed by my learned predecessor. As per the file, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant on 4.1.2018 for summoning the Record-Keeper to produce the Court file of Sh A.K. Jain, the then CJJD, Jalandhar but the same was also dismissed by my learned predecessor. Even in the present application the complainant has sought the summoni