The court emphasized that Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously, and applications to introduce evidence cannot be used to fill evidentiary gaps left by the prosecution.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

The petitioner, who is facing trial as an accused in FIR No.493, dated 30.10.2008, under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, District Rohtak, as well as in a private complaint dated 11.06.2006, under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, throws challenge to the order 01.03.2017 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Solanki, Rohtak, (hereafter referred to as 'the learned trial court concerned'), whereby the third application preferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution, has been allowed. This caused grievance to the present petitioner/accused and propelled him to invoke the inherent powers of this Court as envisaged under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of impugned order (supra).

Brief Facts

2. Before proceeding to evince any opinion upon the legality of the impugned order, it deems imperative to deal with the facts in detail as the case has its chequered history.

3. In the instant case a complaint was filed by respondent no.2-Ramesh Chander, who alleged therein that he was owner of 2/5th share in shops No.361 to 367, Quilla Road, Rohtak, i.e.18 sq.yards, out of 45 sq.yards and the co-accused-Krishan Lal, who was owner of 1/5th share i.e. 9 sq.yards, out of 45 sq.yards, vide sale deed no.5156, dated 06.01.1982, however, he forged the said sale deed and projected himself to be owner of entire 45 sq.yards and obtained a loan of Rs. 10 lacs.from Canara Bank. It was also alleged by him that from the certified copy of the said sale deed he found that relevant page of the original record was torn. Hence, respondent no.2-complainant filed a complaint for taking action against Krishan Lal and other concerned officials, of the revenue department.

4. On the basis of the above complaint, an FIR was registered as mentioned above, besides that respondent no.2-complainant filed a separate private complaint against the present petitioner and other co-accused with similar allegations before the JMIC, Rohtak.

5. The petitioner and co-accused earned acquittal in both; the complaint case; and the FIR, vide verdicts of acquittal dated 18.04.2014 (Annexure P-2) and 31.03.2015 (Annexure P-3) respectively, passed by the learned trial Court concerned.

6. This caused grievance to respondent no.2-complainant, therefore he preferred an appeal against the verdicts of acquittal (supra) before the appellate court concerned. He remained successful in that as the appeal was partly allowed and the matter was remanded back to the learned trial Court concerned, with a direction to club both, the complaint case as well as FIR case and to decide afresh after examining Ramesh, Shakuntala Devi and cross-examining of ASI Parkash Chand.

7. Thereupon, respondent no.2-complainant preferred an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for examination of Ramesh Chander and Shakuntala Devi, that application was allowed by the learned trial Court. Again third application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.was moved by the prosecution for tendering several documents as additional documents and vide impugned order (supra), the said application was allowed, which is under challenge before this Court.

Submissions Of Learned Counsel For the Petitioner

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate court had partially allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.2-complainant, remanded the case to the learned trial Court concerned and only permitted to examine Ramesh Chander and his wife Shakuntala Devi and allowed cross-examination of ASI Parkash Chand.

9. He further submits that the trial court concerned, has no power to entertain fresh application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. as the remand was only for a limited purpose.

10. He further submits that earlier also an application filed by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for examination of complainant-Ramesh Chander and Shakuntala Devi, was rejected as well as the statutory revisional