IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 16.10.2025 Pronounced on: 28.10.2025 MAMTA GOYAL …Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal ***

Present: Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hardeep Singh Wadhwa, DAG Punjab.

Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate (through VC)

for respondent No. 2.

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

1. Prayer in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for setting aside the order dated 21.05.2024 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide which application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning Abhishek Goyal (son of the parties) as prosecution witness was dismissed.

2. The facts, as they emerge from perusal of the paper book are that trial in case vide FIR No. 142 dated 25.11.2016 under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code, Police Station Women Cell, District Ludhiana, was proceeding before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. Prosecution examined witnesses including the complainant, her father, sister and Investigating Officer, whereafter learned trial Court closed prosecution evidence on 08.02.2024. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and when the case was fixed for defence evidence, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant for examination of Abhishek Goyal, son of the parties, as a prosecution witness. 3. Reply to the application was filed by the accused and after hearing respective submissions, learned trial Court dismissed the application observing that the proposed witness Abhishek Goyal was not joined in investigation and none of the prosecution witnesses examined in the case stated that Abhishek Goyal had witnessed the alleged attrocities committed by the accused. It was noticed that daughter of the complainant and accused was given up by the complainant, the application was moved only to delay disposal of the case and that is was not a case of exceptional nature to allow additional evidence. Aggrieved with the decision, the complainant has filed petition challenging the order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that out of the wedlock of the petitioner and respondent No. 2, two children, a girl named Nomisha and a boy named Abhishek were born and each and every inhuman act of respondent No. 2 was witnessed by both children, who had now attained the age of majority. Though petitioner examined herself as PW-1 during the trial, the daughter Nomisha was given up due to compelling circumstances as she remained ill. It was argued that best evidence of the case was shut out by learned trial Court on the ground that Abhishek Goyal was not ever joined in investigation. Referring to judgment of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in J.B. Roy Vs. State 1968 (A.P.) 236, it was argued that the exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was not limited to witnesses, whose statements were recorded during investigation and the Court had ample powers to summon Abhishek Goyal as a witness. His testimony would have an important bearing on the dispute before the Court. He thus prayed that the impugned order be set aside and permission be accorded to examine Abhishek Goyal as prosecution witness in the pending trial.

5. Learned State counsel has supported the order of learned trial Court referring to the reasons recorded in para No. 5 of the order.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 also prayed for dismissal of the petition arguing that Abhishek Goyal was not a witness to any occurrence and his evidence was not necessary for just decision of the case.

7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Karamjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another 2024(2) RCR (Criminal) 825, has enumerated the following principles relating to the exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C.:

“(i) The prime factor for considering a plea under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is as to whether such evidence "appears to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

(ii) Section 31