Sanjiv Kumar Rana vs State of Punjab - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2386

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2386

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
Sanjiv Kumar Rana – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M-4845 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 02-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Ashish Bakshi, Advocate; For the Petitioner
For the Respondent: Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala, AAG, Punjab.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 311 - Quashing of order for the dismissal of an application to summon evidence - The court held that evidence essential for a just decision must be considered regardless of the timing of its presentation. (Paras 12-14, 27-32)

(B) Criminal Trial - The importance of allowing the prosecution to rectify mistakes to ensure justice, emphasizing the significance of evidence for fair trials. Courts should actively participate in ensuring justice without being constrained by procedural lapses. (Paras 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash a trial court’s order that dismissed an application to produce a crucial agreement from ongoing civil litigation for fair adjudication of a related criminal matter. After the FIR was registered for alleged fraud in an agreement to sell a house, the petitioner argued that the dismissal hindered justice as the new evidence was pertinent to the case.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in dismissing the application under Section 311 due to the essential nature of the evidence concerning the case's just resolution.

Issues: Was the trial court justified in denying the application's allowance based on the timing of the request?

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the principle that the need for justice outweighs procedural delays, allowing the introduction of essential evidence even after the closing of prosecution evidence.

Result: Petition granted; the previous order dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background on fir and agreements (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments for the inclusion of evidence (Para 9 , 10)
3. court's analysis of section 311 cr.p.c. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. emphasis on fairness and rectification of errors (Para 15 , 16)
5. final decision to allow evidence and conclude trial (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for the quashing of order dated 04.12.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana in case titled as ' State v. Parwinder Singh and others' whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner (complainant) got registered an FIR No.133 dated 30.07.2014 under Sections 406 , 420, 120- B IPC at Police Station Daba, Ludhiana against Surjit Kaur with the allegations that he (complainant) had entered into an agreement to sell dated 09.07.2013 with Surjit Kaur (respondent No.3) for the sale of a house measuring 75 Sq.Yds. and had paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to her. The respondent No.2/Parwinder Singh and respondent No.4/Kamaljit Singh were witnesses to the said agreement. However, Surjit Kaur-respondent No.3 refused to execute the sale deed on account of the fact that she asked him (petitioner) that she would take the remaining amount in cash only. Thereafter, he (complainant-petitioner) had appeared before the office of Sub Registrar on 10.10.2013 but Surjit Kaur (respondent No.3) did not come to execute the sale deed. A copy of the agreement to sell dated 09.07.2013 is attached as Annexures P-1 to the present petition.

Based on the aforementioned facts, the FIR No.133 dated 30.07.2014 under Sections 406 , 420, 120-B IPC at Police Station Daba, Ludhiana, came into existence.

3. Subsequently, it transpired that respondent No.3-Surjit Kaur had entered into an agreement to sell with Parampal Singh on 23.09.2013.

4. The Trial began and the charges were ordered to be framed against the accused. The recording of prosecution evidence was closed on 03.07.2019.

5. Meanwhile, the petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance titled as ' Sanjiv Kumar Rana v. Surjit Kaur' and Parampal Singh had filed another suit for specific performance titled as ' Parampal Singh v. Surjit Kaur and others'. Both the suits were pending adjudication before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana.

6. In order to summon the record in the said civil cases to prove the agreement to sell dated 23.09.2013, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved. A copy of the agreement to sell dated 23.09.2013 executed by respondent No.3-Surjit Kaur in favour of Parampal Singh and an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. dated 12.09.2019 are attached as Annexure P-2 and P-3 respectively to the petition.

7. The Trial Court dismissed the said application holding that the documents sought to be produced were not relevant and even otherwise, the prosecution had availed a substantial amount of time to conclude its evidence. A copy of the impugned order dated 04.12.2019 is attached as Annexure P-4 to the petition.

It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition.

8. Notice of motion was issued. But despite service, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4.

9. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that initially, an agreement to sell dated 09.07.2013 had been entered into between respondent No.3-Surjit Kaur and the petitioner. The sale deed was to be executed by 10.10.2013. However, Surjit Kaur-respondent No.3 executed another agreement to sell in favour of Parampal Singh on 23.09.2013. Two civil suits for specific performance had been filed by the petitioner as also Parampal Singh with respect to their respective agreements to sell dated 09.07.2013 (Annexure P-1) and 23.09.2013 (sought to be produced). The bringing on record the agreement to sell in question dated 23.09.2013 was essential for the