JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral) - The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.07.2019 (annexure P-1) passed by the Trial Court whereby the application under Section311 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution has been partly declined to the extent of tendering certified copies of the civil litigation between the parties.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant-petitioner got recorded an FIR No.78 dated 14.05.2015 under Sections 447/427/506/511/148 and 149 IPC with Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar City, with the allegations that he had taken on lease about 121/2 acres of land belonging to Dera Smadh Baba Maddu Dass (Dera Jandha Sahib) at Alawalpur and was cultivating the same for the last 17 years.

On 14.05.2015 while he was at home, he came to know that Malkiat Singh-respondent No.2/accused alongwith 40-50 unknown persons and 12-13 tractors armed with deadly weapons with intention to forcibly dispossess the petitioner, destroyed the crops of sugar, chilly and wheat crops standing in the fields. When the petitioner reached at the spot, respondent No.2-Malkiat Singh and his associates fled away from there. Pursuant thereto, the investigation was concluded, challan submitted and the trial commenced.

3. In the meantime, the petitioner-complainant also filed a civil suit titled as 'Sukhdev Kumar Chodha versus Malkiat Singh' for permanent injunction. The accused-Malkiat Singh (defendant therein), filed a written statement alleging that he is in possession of the suit property on the basis of one alleged pattanama. The said civil suit was duly contested by both the parties and after hearing both the parties on merits, the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar passed a decree in the suit of the complainant-petitioner on 22.05.2019, as per which the Court came to the conclusion that the defendant-Malkiat Singh had failed to prove his possession over the suit property whereas the plaintiff by leading cogent action and convincing evidence had proved that he is in possession of the suit property being a lessee and was, thus, entitled to the relief of permanent injunction.

4. Because of the aforesaid circumstances of having obtained a decree from the Civil Judge (Junior Divison) Jalandhar, clearly establishing his possession, that an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner-complainant before the Trial Court, Jalandhar to tender the documents of the civil suit. The Trial Court partly allowed the application but declined the prayer in part holding that since the said document (certified copy of the civil suit) was not a part of the challan, the same could not be tendered at this stage.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court had vide judgment and decree dated 22.05.2019 come to a positive finding in Para 22 that it was the plaintiff (petitioner herein), who was in peaceful possession of the land in dispute and the defendant-Malkiat Singh (respondent No.2 herein) was restrained from interfering his peaceful possession. A copy of the aforesaid judgment was attached as Annexure P-5. He, thus, contended that the tendering of the said documents were essential for the just adjudication of the case and the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court in rejecting the application is completely illegal. There is nothing in Section 311 Cr.P.C. which bars the production of a document which is not a part of the challan. In fact, Section 311 Cr.P.C. is couched in wide terms and any evidence which is essential for the just adjudication of the case should be allowed to be produced in the Court.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the impugned order has rightly been passed because the petitioner-complainant wants to place on record the civil suit which is not a part of the challan, and therefore, cannot be tendered in evidence. He further submits that the proceedings of a Ci