Crl. Misc. No. M-24566 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-24566 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 24, 2010 Santosh Kumar Chanda and another ........Petitioners Versus The Chairman, Shanti Educational and Charitable Trust, Ambala City ........Respondent ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. K.S. Jetley, Advocate, for the petitioners. SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing the orders dated 19.4.2010 (Annexure-P-1) passed in Criminal Complaint No.478/30.3.2006/16.4.2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala, in the complaint (Annexure P-2) titled as Santosh Kumar Chadha & another versus The Chairman, Shanti Educational & Charitable Trust, Ambala City. Learned trial Court while dismissing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in para 5 of the impugned order held as under :- “By way of proposed application the applicant wants to examine complainant no.2 Smt. Shashi Chadha as a witness in the present case in whose possession same hand written chits with regard to the demand of amount by the accused are lying. Perusal of the file shows that the present complaint was instituted on 08.03.2006. Notice of Crl. Misc. No. M-24566 of 2010 (O&M) 2 accusation was served upon the accused on 22.09.2008 and thereafter the complainant availed as many as 22 effective opportunities to lead evidence on his behalf and has examined Sh. Santosh Chadha complainant no.1 as CW 1 and vide his separate recording statement on 19.02.2010 the complainant Sh. Santosh Chadha has closed his evidence. Perusal of the file also shows that the complainant no.2 has been represented by complainant no.1 her husband as her attorney. Further neither in his complaint nor in preliminary evidence or in legal notice the complainant has mentioned a single word about issuance of alleged chits by the accused. Further there is nothing on record to show how suddenly the complainant no.2 has come up with alleged chits after the evidence of the complainant has been closed. Moreover, complainant no.1 is the husband of complainant no.2 and is her attorney so it cannot be said that he was not in knowledge of aforesaid documents as alleged. Moreover, the complainant has already availed sufficient opportunities to lead his evidence and the same has been closed by the complainant vide his statement dated 19.02.2010. Now no justifiable ground is made out for allowing the complainant to examine complainant no.2 as a witness. Thus, it appears that the present application has been moved just to fill up lacuna in the case of the complainant.” Crl. Misc. No. M-24566 of 2010 (O&M) 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the petitiones, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. The petitioners have filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable of Instrument Act, 1881 against the respondents. The said complaint was instituted on 8.3.2006. Notice of accusation was served upon the accused on 22.9.2008. Thereafter the petitioners closed their evidence. Now the application has been filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for permission to examine petitioners no.2 as a witness in order to prove certain hand written chits with regard to demand of amount by the petitioners. Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under :- “311.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 case.” Thus, as per the above provision the Court has the power to summon any person as a witness during trial at any stage if the said evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. However, in the present case the petitioners had already availed as many as 20 opportunities to lead their evidence and thereafter they closed their evidence. Petitioner No.1 who is the husband of petitioner no.2 has already Crl. Misc. No. M-24566 of 2010 (O&M) 4 appeared in the witness box on his own behalf and on behalf of petitioner no.2. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court rightly held that there was no justifiable ground for allowing the application and to allow the examination of petitioner no.2 as a witness. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) August 24, 2010 JUDGE Anand