IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.01.2025 Inderjit Thakur and others ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Yuvraj Singh, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Ivan Singh Khosa, Advocate and Mr. Akshay Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the order dated 11.02.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana whereby the application dated 17.10.2018 filed by the respondent No.2 (herein) -complainant, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. of 1973 was allowed and respondent No.2-complainant was permitted to place on record the purchase bill as well as the photographs of the articles allegedly stolen by the accused (petitioners herein) after breaking the locks.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has iterated that the bills and the photographs in question were not submitted during the investigation and are alleged to be forged and fabricated as no theft was committed by the petitioners. Learned counsel has further iterated that the bills and photographs were presented before the investigating agency, however, the same has not been considered by the investigating agency, being irrelevant, and accordingly, the challan was filed. According to learned counsel, while allowing the application, the learned Court below has permitted the prosecution to examine the witnesses regarding the bills. However, it is emphasized that as these witnesses were not included in the challan, their evidence should not be considered by the Court. Allowing such an exercise would result in a miscarriage of justice, as it would enable either party to gather additional evidence, after the filing of the challan, thereby filling the lacunae. It has been further iterated that the evidence sought to be brought on record by virtue of Section 311 Cr.P.C., at the most pertains to Section 380/201 of IPC of which charge has not been framed by the trial Court 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. Learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent No.2 has opposed the instant petition by arguing that the purchase bills and photographs relate to the stolen property, which forms the subject matter of the present FIR and the ensuing trial. According to learned counsel, these documents are being introduced by the complainant-respondent No.2 during the prosecution’s evidence, specifically during his own testimony. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners-accused, who can challenge the authenticity of this evidence through cross-examination or by presenting their own defence evidence. Furthermore, Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 empowers the Court to issue summons for the production of any document or other material which it deemed necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation or trial.

Therefore, dismissal of the instant petition is prayed 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,