IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.156 CRM-M-50650-2023 Reserved on:-24.03.2026 Pronounced on:-01.04.2026 Uploaded on:-

Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment VINEET TOMAR ...Petitioner Versus INDRAJ SINGH ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Jitender Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manoj K. Sood, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 05.08.2023 passed in complaint case No. 7800 of 2018 dated 07.07.2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad, whereby the learned trial Court has allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning and examining three proposed witnesses.

2. The complainant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence, stating that the accused had taken a friendly loan of ₹4,50,000/- in September 2017 in the presence of certain witnesses, namely Rohit, Shaukin and Vijay. It was submitted that these witnesses could not be examined earlier during the course of evidence due to unavoidable circumstances, though they are material witnesses necessary for proper adjudication of the case, and that no prejudice would be caused to the accused if they are allowed to be examined.

3. In reply, the accused opposed the application by contending that no such loan transaction ever took place and that the complainant has no privity of contract with him. It was further contended that the said witnesses were never mentioned either in the complaint, pre-summoning evidence, post-summoning evidence, or in the list of witnesses at any stage since the filing of the complaint in the year 2018. The application was stated to be an attempt to fill lacunae in the case and to delay the proceedings by introducing false and irrelevant witnesses, and thus liable to be dismissed. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad, vide order dated 05.08.2023, allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., observing that the examination of the proposed witnesses is necessary for just decision of the case and proper adjudication of the dispute. It was further observed that the accused would have full opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses and no prejudice would be caused to him, and accordingly the application was allowed.

4. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad. However, the learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 05.09.2023, dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable, holding that an order passed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is purely interlocutory in nature and, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no revision lies against such an order. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the aforesaid order passed by the court below.

5. The petitioner has contended that the impugned order dated 05.08.2023 passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, perverse and against the settled principles of law, as the learned Magistrate has failed to apply its judicial mind while allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the proposed witnesses were never mentioned in the original complaint, list of witnesses or at the stage of preliminary as well as post- summoning evidence, and no explanation has been furnished as to why they were not examined earlier. It is further contended that the case is pending since the year 2018 and the evidence of both the parties already stood closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments, and at such a belated stage, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been filed only to fill up lacunae in the case and to delay the proceedings. The petitioner has also argued that the complainant is