Ravinder Walia vs State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2367

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2367

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KARAMJIT SINGH, J.
Ravinder Walia – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-19991 of 2023 IN/AND CRM-M-6203 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 04-07-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Vishal Kashyap, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Tejas Bansal, Advocate, for Respondents No.2 to 4.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 and 311 - Criminal procedure - Quashing of trial court's order refusing to allow additional evidence - Court reiterated that trial courts possess expansive powers under Section 311 which should be exercised judiciously for just decisions - Petitioner's legal standing affirmed for adduction of evidence crucial to the case - Impugned order set aside, allowing the recall of witnesses for further examination. (Paras 9, 10, 14, 16)

(B) Legal Heir - Standing in the case - Claiming status as testamentary legal heir, the right to file under Section 311 upheld.

Findings of Court:
The evidence proposed by the petitioner is deemed essential for adjudicating the case, necessitating the recall of certain witnesses.

Issues: The main questions concerned the legitimacy of the will and the necessity of additional evidence for a just resolution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the authority under Section 311 is expansive and should facilitate the uncovering of truth in cases regardless of elapsed time.

Result: Petition allowed in terms stated.

Table of Content
1. factual background regarding fir and application (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments regarding section 311 cr.p.c. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. court analysis of section 311 cr.p.c. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. court's view on necessity of evidence (Para 14 , 15)
5. directional order for the trial court (Para 16)
6. conclusion and next steps in the trial (Para 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT

Karamjit Singh, J.

Petitioner-Ravinder Walia has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 8.1.2020 (Annexure P- 15) passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Panipat whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for calling/recalling of the concerned witnesses was rejected in a criminal case having FIR No.743 dated 15.6.2023 registered under Sections 420 , 467, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station Panipat.

2. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that the aforesaid FIR was registered against respondents No.2, 3 and 4 on the basis of the complaint lodged by Ujaggar Singh (since deceased) wherein he alleged that plot No.486, Sector 24, Panipat was allotted to his son Sethi Singh by Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short, "HUDA") and later on, in August, 2010, Sethi Singh entered into an agreement to sell the said plot and the said agreement was valid up to 22.10.2020 and in the meantime, Sethi Singh died on 20.9.2010. After the death of Sethi Singh, the accused persons showed sympathy to the complainant and offered help to Ujaggar Singh to get transferred the said plot in his name he being the only legal heir of his son Sethi singh who was bachelor; that on the pretext of providing the help, the accused persons took the complainant to the office of Estate Officer on 20.1.2011 and took signatures of the complainant on certain documents with understanding that the same were required for transfer of plot in question in the name of the complainant; that later on, complainant-Ujaggar Singh came to know that the accused persons misused the said signed documents and got transferred the plot in question in the name of respondent No.3-Sarika Gupta who is daughter of respondent No.2-K.K.Gupta and both of them colluded with respondent No.4-Pawan Narang; that in this manner, the accused persons committed fraud and cheating against complainant-Ujaggar Singh in order to grab his property. Consequently, FIR was registered in the present case.

3. After completion of investigation, the police presented the challan and the trial Court framed charges and then the prosecution led its evidence and in the meantime, complainant-Ujaggar Singh died. Petitioner- Ravinder Walia is claiming himself to be a testamentary legal heir of Ujaggar Singh on the basis of Will dated 7.10.2014. The petitioner was also cited as a prosecution witness in the challan presented by the police against the accused persons under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.

4. During the pendency of the trial, petitioner-Ravinder Walia claiming himself to be legal heir of complainant-Ujaggar Singh, filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to adduce the following additional evidence : -

(i) Policy of transfer of ownership of residential plot/house in case of death of an allottee dated 1.2.2011 framed by HUDA.

(ii) Instructions issued by Chief Administrator, HUDA vide memo No.UB-A-3-2011/29566-89 dated 7.9.2011 and UB-A-3-2011/30963-85 dated 20.9.2011 to all the Estate Officers with regard to transfer of ownership of residential plot in case of death of allottee.

(iii) To recall PW3 official of the office of Sub Registrar-cum-Tehsildar, Panipat to produce original register maintained in the said office with regard to attestation of affidavit by Executive Magistrate, Panipat pertaining to 26.7.2011 and 10.6.2011 in order to establish that fictitious serial numbers were given to the alleged attestation of affidavit of Ujaggar Singh purported to be executed on 26.7.2011 and 10.6.2011.

(iv) To recall PW8-Vikas Sodhi, Stamp V