IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.25292 of 2025 Date of decision : 07.07.2025 Amarjeet Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present: Mr. S. K. Kanojia, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for impugning order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-6) whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 91 Cr.P.C. for re-summoning/examination of the Investigating Officer along with the case property was dismissed by the learned trial Court without considering the material aspects of the case. Further prayer has been made that re-summoning/examination of the Investigating Officer along with case property, i.e. Bricks be allowed (in CHI No.716/2021 pending for 20.05.2025, State vs. Jasvir Singh).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner before this Court is the complainant, on whose statement, the FIR was lodged. He has submitted that SI Amrinder Singh, i.e. the Investigating Officer had appeared before the Court during the trial and stated that the bricks were taken in possession by the Investigating Agency but later on, he stated that he has not seen the case property as the same was not brought by the police on the date of his examination. He has submitted that the same was a material piece of evidence and hence the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling the Investigating Officer to bring the case property as per the recovery memo, Exhibit P- 5/PW-2. He has submitted that the case property were recovered by the police vide recovery memo. He has submitted that the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. are to be invoked to meet the ends of justice. He has submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the same and thus has illegally declined the application filed by the petitioner- complainant. He has relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Himanshu Singh Sabharwal vs. State of M.P.’, (SC) 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 267 and by this Hon’ble Court in ‘Gobind Parsad vs. State of Punjab’ CRR-1763-2018, decided on 15.11.2022 and ‘Dr. Devender Singh vs. Navdeep Singh and another 2017(1) RCR (Criminal) 690, etc. He has submitted that the impugned order being unsustainable in the eyes of law deserves to be set aside.

3. The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his able assistance.

4. Admittedly the petitioner is the complainant, at whose behest the FIR has been lodged. The appreciation of the record would reveal that SI Amrinder Singh, i.e. the Investigating Officer, was examined as PW-2 on 03.04.2023 and the request made by the APP to defer his examination was also declined. However the application was filed on 12.03.2024, i.e. after about a year.

5. Needless to say that the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. though to be invoked in a liberal manner but the same cannot be allowed to fill up the lacunas or delay the trial.

6. However, in view of the law settled, it is apparent that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C (Section 348 of BNSS) should be invoked only to meet the ends of justice. The power should be exercised for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. Section 348 of BNSS (Section 311 Cr.P.C) is reproduced hereunder:-

“348. 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