IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that under Section 311 Cr.P.C., witnesses can be summoned at any stage if their testimony is essential for justice, prioritizing truth and fairness in trials.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners pray to set aside the order dated 10.04.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, in case titled “State v. Kiran Singhal and others”, arising out of FIR No.60 dated 09.03.2018 under Sections 323, 325 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Maloya, Chandigarh, whereby application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for examination of an additional witness, namely Surinder Pal Singh, was allowed.

2. FIR in question (Annexure P-1) was lodged on the complaint of respondent No.2 Simpy Singhal, as per which after the death of her husband Varun Singhal on 05.07.2013, her father-in-law Bhagwat Prashad, mother-in-law Kiran Singhal (petitioner No.1) and brother-in-law Sameer Singhal (petitioner No.2) had started harassing her. She made complaints to the police many times. On 28.02.2018, the aforesaid accused came up stairs and opened her room despite stay order by the Court. It is alleged that her mother-in-law and father-in-law caught hold of her by hair and pulled her at about 7.30 a.m., whereas her brother-in-law gave her slaps, caught hold by her hands and twisted them, due to which she got fracture in the finger of her left hand. She called the police by dialing at 100. PCR came at 7.53 a.m. but went away after enquiring from the ground floor. She (complainant) then went to her neighbours along with her son. Her entire finger had got a bend. Her neighbours again called at 100 and PCR came at 8.05 a.m. She was then sent to Govt. Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh for providing medical treatment.

3. Necessary investigation was carried out. Both the petitioners along with Bhagwat Prashad Singhal were charge-sheeted under Sections 325/34 IPC, as per Annexure P-3.

4. During trial, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-4) was moved by the complainant stating therein that on the date of incident, when injuries were caused to her, she had approached her neighbour, namely Surinder Pal Singh and his wife and narrated the incident to them and who had immediately called the PCR by dialing 100. It was further submitted that PW4 Inspector Ashok Kumar during his cross-examination stated that he had not associated any neighbour or any independent person, which fact was incorrect because Surinder Pal Singh had called the police being the immediate neighbour of the complainant and therefore, summoning of said Surinder Pal Singh was necessary and crucial.

5. The accused-petitioners filed reply (Annexure P-5), opposing the application, submitting that accused had already disclosed their defence; that almost all the prosecution witnesses including the doctor and the Investigating Officer had been examined and that name of Surinder Pal Singh did not figure in any document and so, a vain attempt was being made by the complainant to introduce Surinder Pal Singh as a witness after lapse of more than four years and that allowing the application will prejudice the valuable right accrued to the accused.

6. After hearing both the sides, learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 10.04.2023 (Annexure P-6) allowed the application after observing that examination of witness Surinder Pal Singh was very material to decide the case in proper manner.

7.1 Impugning the aforesaid order, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the application was moved at the fag end of the trial and that too after the cross-examination of the complainant and that allowing the application shall prejudice the accused, who had already diverged their defence and thus, valuable right accrued in his favour stands prejudiced. Learned counsel further contends that power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been exercised in an arbitrary manner by the Trial Court concerned without giving any reasons for not moving the application earlier. Learned counsel further contends that neither in the FIR nor in the investigation, the name of Surinder Pal Si