IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 1211 of 2025

Reserved on: 17.12.2025

Date of Decision: 1.1.2026.

M/s Punjab Industries and another ...Petitioners

Versus

M/s Mansarovar Minerals and C hemicals, through its Partner

Vijender Kumar Walia t

...Respondent

[

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate.

For the Respondent : None.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioners have filed the present petition against

the order dated 20.11.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, District Sirmaur, HP, vide which the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by the respondent (complainant before the learned Trial Court) was allowed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were

arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The complainant applied for the production of certified documents under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court allowed the application. The order passed by the learned Trial uCourt is not sustainable because the complainant waonted to fill up the lacuna left by it, which is impermissCible. The accused had disclosed their defence in the cross-examination of the witnesses, and the application was filed to overcome the defence of the accused. The application was filed at a belated stage and could not have been allowed. Therefore, it Hwas prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set-aside.

3. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the application was filed to fill up the lacuna, which is impermissible. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the accused had disclosed their defence, and allowing the application prejudiced the accused. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set-aside. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.P. Tamilmaran Vs. State and others 2025 INSC 576 and Varsha Garg Vs. State of 2023 (19) SCC 646 in support of his submission.

4. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

5. The complainarnt had filed the complaint with the averments that it is a Partnership Firm. The complainant filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to bring the Partnership Deed on record. The complaint was filed with the averments that the complainant is a partnership firm; hence, the Partnership Deed was a relevant document.

i6. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Varsha Garg v. State of M.P., (2023) 19 SCC 646: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 986 that the Court has the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon any witness, recall or re-examine any person for the just decision of the case. It was observed at page 659: -

31. Having clarified that the bar under Section 301 is inapplicable and that the appellant is well placed to pursue this appeal, we now examine Section 311 of CrPC. Section

311 provides that the court “may”:

(i) Summon any person as a witness or to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; and (ii) Recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined. H This power can be exercised at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under th e CrPC. The latter part of Section 311 states that the cfourt “shall” summon and examine or recall and re-oexamine any such person “if his evidence appears to the court to be essential to the just decision of the case”. Section 311 contains a power upon the court in broad terms. The statu