IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:- 22.5.2025 Date of Decision: 10.6.2025 Mandeep Kaur ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Argued by: Mr. P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Akshat Dalal, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J.

1. The instant petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 17.7.2018 passed by the learned trial Court concerned, in case FIR No. 33 dated 17.4.2014 under Sections 304-B and 201 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Mehtiana, District Hoshiarpur, whereby an application preferred by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of two additional witnesses, namely Rakesh Kumar and Harpreet Kumar alias Vicky has been allowed.

Brief facts of the case

2. The present FIR was registered under Sections 304-B and 201 IPC on the basis of a statement made by the complainant-respondent No.2, who is the father of deceased alle3ging that his daughter had suffered maltreatment and harassment at the hands of her in-laws including the Gurpreet Singh present petitioner-Mandeep Kaur due to demands of dowry, which ultimately led to her death. The accused persons, who are named in the FIR included Gurdev Kaur (mother-in-law), Gurmej Rai (father-in-law), Sukhwinder Rai (Jeth), Lovedeep Rai (brother-in-law) and Mandeep Kaur (jethani), who is the petitioner in the instant petition.

3. Pursuant to the registration of the present FIR, the trial commenced and the entire prosecution evidence was duly led before the learned trial Court. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of all the accused including the present petitioner, were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused led eight defence witnesses into the witness box. It was at that advance stage of the trial, when both the prosecution and defence had presented their primary evidence, the complainant-respondent No. 2 moved the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking the summoning of two additional witnesses. Vide the impugned order dated 17.7.2018, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, after considering the rival contentions of both the parties, allowed the application (supra). Hence, the present petition.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is unsustainable in the eyes of law given the fact that two witnesses, namely Rakesh Kumar and Harpreet Kumar alias Vicky, who are now sought to summoned under Section 311 Cr.P.C. were never cited in the list of witnesses by the prosecution. It has also been argued that the investigating agency did not even record their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and introducing them in the trial as witnesses, at this stage, is a blatant violation of the principles of fair trial as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel further submits that from I attest to the accuracy 2an6d.9.2017 to 2.5.2018 eight defence witnesses were examined and at this stage, on 23.5.2018, the instant application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed seeking summoning of two additional prosecution witnesses. At this belated stage, the instant application has been filed to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case, which would also cause prejudice to the defence. Furthermore, the impugned order allowing the instant application tantamounts to a grave misuse of the process of law. Moreover, the same has been passed without considering the stage of trial and without considering the vague reasons put-forth in the application in question.

Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2

5. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No. 2 submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, is a well-reasoned order and is