##PAGE1##

CRM-M-17363-2018 - 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

149 CRM-M-17363-2018 (O & M)

Date of decision: 24.03.2026

KASHMIR SINGH ...Petitioner

Versus BALWINDER KAUR AND ANR

...Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

Present : Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramnish Puri, Advocate, for the respondents.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 20.09.2016, Annexure P-4, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, in Criminal Complaint No.COMI/34809/2013 dated 19.07.2011, under Sections 494, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, vide which application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C., for summoning the concerned Clerk, Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh, alongwith record, was dismissed, as also the order dated 27.03.2018,

whereby revision thereagainst stands dismissed being not maintainable.

2. Learned counsel contends that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., was filed by the petitioner to summon the said witness alongwith record at the pre-charge stage, he being relevant for decision of the case, which was rejected on account of the fact that he was not named in the list of the witnesses and the revision challenging the same, was also

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.03.25 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-17363-2018 - 2 -

dismissed being not maintainable. In case, the same is not allowed, an irreparable loss and prejudice is being caused to him. Only one opportunity, which may even be subject to costs, be granted. He relies on Rajwinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 474 and Rakesh Kumar vs. State of Punjab and another 2015(26) RCR

(Criminal) 45.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the petition on the ground that when the accused was summoned in the present case, reliance was not placed on the deposition of the concerned Clerk of the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh.The Courts below have rightly

passed the impugned orders.

4. Heard.

5. Before proceeding further, it is expedient to refer Section 311

Cr.P.C., that reads thus:

“ 311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the

case.”

6. The utilization of powers under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by the Court serves a specific purpose, which is not to patch up the gaps in the evidence of the prosecution or bolster the case of defence, but rather to unearth the pertinent facts or obtain solid evidence necessary for proper

PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.03.25 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-17363-2018 - 3 -

adjudication in the case. The latter part of the section clearly enunciates that any person can be recalled or re-examined, as long as the Court is satisfied that his evidence is essential for a just decision of the case and there might not be miscarriage of justice. Illuminating the provision of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and powers with the Court, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Godrej Pacific Tech. Limited vs. Computer Joint India Limited , (2008) 11 SCC 108, observed that, “The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the court to summon a witness