JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J. (Oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that the instant petition has been filed, inadvertently, as a criminal revision before this Court, which is not maintainable in terms of dicta passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as Sethuraman versus Rajamanickam; 2009(5) SCC 153. He has further averred that the present petition be treated as a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.

In the interest of justice, the prayer is accepted. The instant petition is being treated as a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023.

1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh whereby the application filed by the respondent (herein) -complainant, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. of 1973 was allowed and respondent - complainant was permitted to lead the additional evidence.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner has filed a detailed reply specifically opposing the application for additional evidence on the ground that the respondent - complainant has failed to disclose any particulars of the documents sought to be brought on record. Despite the glaring absence of particulars, the trial Court without proper appreciation of facts and law has allowed the application in hand. According to learned counsel, the impugned order is ex facie unsustainable in law, being based on mere presumptions and conjectures. It is further contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic, sketchy, non-reasoned, devoid of merit and thus, deserves to be set-aside. It has been further iterated that the additional evidence sought to be brought on record by virtue of Section 311 Cr.P.C., are not necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case and, therefore, the same is irrelevant. Further, no ground is made out by the applicant (before the trial Court) to bring forward the evidence by virtue of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. at this belated stage. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the impugned order is non-speaking as the concluding paragraph of the order clearly indicates that the Court below has allowed the application without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, no reasoning has been assigned to justify the decision. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant- respondent has opposed the instant petition by arguing that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. According to learned counsel, certain documents were not the possession of the respondent - complainant at the time of filing of the complaint and therefore, the complaint was instituted without annexing those documents. It is further averred that the said documents are essential for the just and proper adjudication of the present complaint. Thus, dismissal of the instant petition is entreated for.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the paper-book.

5. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in case titled as Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another: 2024 NCPHHC 24178, relevant whereof reads as under:-

'8.4 As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles emerge:

(I) The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are as follows:

(i) The prime factor for considering a plea under Section 311 of Cr,.P.C. is as to whether such evidence 'appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. '

(ii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court even when cross-examination of a witness has earlier been foreclosed by a Court order. Such exercise of power by the Court cannot be construed as the concerned Court recalling/reviewing its own order.

(iii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Cour