IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.2305 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.9.2011 Pardeep ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.9.2011 whereby the application moved by the complainant under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been allowed. The petitioner is facing accusations for having caused injuries to the complainant in an incident of violence. By way of invocation of power under Section 311 of the Code the complainant wanted to summon the medico-legal record as also the record of the PGIMS, Rohtak which was necessitated on account of the statement of the doctor who had been examined earlier. The said application having been allowed has resulted in the grievance of the petitioner which has been expressed in the instant petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the power Crl.Rev.No.2305 of 2011 (O&M) -2- under Section 311 of the Code is not intended to fill up the lacuna in the case and the learned trial Court by virtue of the impugned order has precisely done that. He thus prays that the impugned order be set aside. I have considered the contentions which have been raised before this Court and have also perused the impugned order. The petitioner is facing proceedings initiated by the complainant by way of filing of a complaint. Subsequent thereto FIR was registered. For the reasons best known to the investigating agency the medico-legal record was not a part of the challan. Considering the accusations against the petitioner and the testimony of the doctor which had come on record and upon an application having been moved under Section 311 of the Code, the Court concluded that it was essential for the proper adjudication of the case and thus allowed the prayer of the complainant. Exercise of power under Section 311 by the learned trial Court thus cannot be faulted as it has kept in view the fundamentals of law as contemplated under Section 311 of the Code. The underlying factor is that it should appear to the Court that the material which is sought to be summoned by way of evidence is essential for the just decision of the case and having recorded the satisfaction to this effect as also the relevance of the intended evidence the Court did not commit any error. Reliance can be placed on Zahira Habibulla H.Sheikh and another v. State of Gujarat and others, 2004 SCC(Crl.) 999. For the aforesaid reason in the impugned order, which is supported by a justifiable reason, I am of the opinion that the revision Crl.Rev.No.2305 of 2011 (O&M) -3- petition is without any merit and is thus dismissed. 28.9.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss