The wide power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. allows the court to recall witnesses or lead additional evidence for a fair trial and just decision.

JUDGMENT

Sanjiv Berry, J. - Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of the order dated 22.01.2020 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal,(Annexure P-4), whereby the application filed under Section 311 Cr. P.C. had been partly declined.

2. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that the FIR No. 83 dated 04.02.2014 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC was got registered at Police Station Sadar, Karnal, (Annexure P-1) by the petitioner on account of fraud being played by the accused by selling non-transferrable land to him on the basis of forged documents. As per the complainant- Naresh Kumar, (the present petitioner), the accused, namely Kishore Singh, and his wife, namely Rajkumari Singh, had shown him the jamabandi and the site plan of the land and finally the deal was settled for Rs. 19,04,000/- with the accused and Rs. 12,12,000/- with his wife and the complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- each to them as earnest money and thereafter an agreement to sell dated 13.07.2012 was executed. Later, the complainant paid another sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- each to them as earnest money. The other accused also actively participated in the said transaction. Thereafter, the sale deed was executed in the office of Sub Registrar, Jabalpur. As per the petitioner, when he applied for getting the mutation entered, he was informed by the Patwari that the said land was non-transferrable and the seller had no right to get this land sold. On the basis of the complaint, the case was registered. After completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the concerned Court and the trial commenced.

3. During the course of trial, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, dealing with the case, closed the evidence of prosecution by order on 16.12.2019 (Annexure P-2).

4. Aggrieved by the said order (Annexure P-2), the petitioner-complainant moved an application dated 04.01.2020 (Annexure P-3) under Section 311 Cr.PC for examination of the material prosecution witnesses.

5. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, then dealing with the case, vide the impugned order dated 22.01.2020 (Annexure P-4) partly allowed the application thereby granting permission to the prosecution to examine the petitioner-complainant as a witness in the case while the request for examination of the remaining witnesses was declined.

6. A revision was preferred by the petitioner in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, which, however, was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.02.2021 (Annexure P-6) and aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been preferred seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 22.01.2020 (Annexure P-4).

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel and perused the record.

8. It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid FIR in question (Annerxure P-1) was got registered, at the instance of petitioner-complainant, as on the basis of forged and fabricated documents pertaining to the land, the accused in connivance with each other had got the said land sold to him which in fact was non-transferrable land. He further contends that after the completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court and trial commenced. The case was fixed for 16.12.2019 for examination of the prosecution witnesses but on that date, no witness appeared as the warrants of arrest qua witnesses: Sanjay, Dhanraj, Ashok and Mahender were received back unexecuted while the warrants of arrest regarding the witness: Sunil and ASI Shiv Charan, had not been received back nor the summons issued qua witnesss number 12 and 13 were received back, so the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, while passing the order dated 16.12.2019 (Annexure P-2) closed the evidence of the prosecution by order. He further contends that the petitioner then moved an application under Sect