CRM No. M 10661 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 10661 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.04.2011 Manoj Kumar and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Haryana ........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. R K Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the order dated 26.02.2011 passed by the JMIC, Karnal, whereby, additional evidence has been allowed in case titled as State of Haryana v. Manoj Kumar and others. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while challenging the impugned order contended that the prosecution took number of opportunities to produce the evidence over a period of more than five years. Their evidence was finally closed on 06.10.2010. The statement of the petitioners were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the matter was listed for evidence on 07.12.2010. As such, to allow the application at that stage is nothing but solely delaying tactics and is an attempt to harass the CRM No. M 10661 of 2011 2 petitioners, Secondly, the respondents have been allowed to produce the additional evidence to prove the first marriage of petitioner No. 1 to show that he was married before marrying the complainant, whereas, there is no such, allegation in the complaint and even the charges have not been framed under the said offence. As such, the said evidence is not necessary or required for the adjudication of the case. Thirdly, the documents which were sought to be produced, were available with the complainant and no attempt was made to produce the same when the prosecution of evidence was going on. Heard. Taking up the first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said documents are not necessary as there is no such issue relating to the first marriage of the petitioner involved in the present case, cannot be sustained. One of the allegations in the complaint reads as under:- “On the first night at Bangalore the accused No. 1 also taunted the complainant that her parents have not given the sufficient dowry as per his status. The accused No. 1 also told that there is a Christian girl named Mary whose parents were interested in the marriage of their girl with him and they have also offered to give cash amount of Rs.10 lacs as well as luxury household items including luxury car. The accused No. 1 also told that his parents were interested to marry him with a Punjabi girl of their status and that is why the marriage between them was settled and performed. He also further told that their wishes were not fulfilled as such his parents are not satisfied with the dowry.” CRM No. M 10661 of 2011 3 It is evident from the above that the allegations against petitioner No. 1 is that he got married to the complainant out of greed. At that stage, the complainant may not have known that the petitioner was already married but the fact that he referred to one Mary whom he wanted to get married on the first night itself is sufficient to give rise to the suspicion that he married her out of greed even though he was already married. Therefore, the said documents would be relevant to show that it was not just that the petitioner wanted to get married to Mary but rather was already married and subsequently, got married to the complainant in order to satisfy the wish of the parents for more dowry. The second argument that the documents were available with the complainant and still the same were not produced, already stands answered in the impugned order, wherein, it is recorded that the prosecution did not place the said documents with the challan even though the same had been handed over to them. As such, the necessity has arisen to produce them now. Moreover, 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 its 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.” A perusal of the Section 311 Cr.P.C shows that the said CRM No. M 10661 of 2011 4 documents can be produced at any stage before pronouncing of the judgment if the same appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. In view of the above, there is nothing which may enable this Court to set aside the well reasoned order dated 26.02.2011 passed by the JMIC, Karnal vide which the respondents have been allowed to lead the additional evidence in the form of Certified copies of EX A-1 to A6 and certified copy of the judgment dated 31.08.2007 which, in any case, are stated to have been already produced in the divorce petition bearing No. 23/2007 titled as Meetu v. Manoj decided vide judgment dated 31.08.2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Karnal. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 19.04.2011 mohan