Crl.Rev.No. 2932 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 2932 of 2010 Date of decision: 11.8.2011 Shanti Devi ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Satbir Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana. Mr.R.S.Sheoran, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2, 4, 6 and 8. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 12.10.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, whereby the application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) was dismissed. Crl.Rev.No. 2932 of 2010 2 The petitioner had lodged the FIR bearing No.195 dated 24.12.2001 under Sections 420, 467, 436, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Ding against the accused on the allegations that she had been cheated by the accused party. The accused party had got signatures of the complainant party on some blank papers and thereafter, they had executed an agreement to sell dated 24.10.2001 on the same. It was also mentioned in the agreement to sell that ` 2,90,000/- had been obtained by the complainant party at the time of its execution. During the pendency of the trial, an application was moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to prove on record the judgment and decree dated 24.2.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge and the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge in civil suit No.768 of 2001. Vide the impugned order, the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present petition by the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the civil proceedings, finding has come that the agreement to sell in question was a forged and a fabricated document. The Judgments and decrees passed in the civil proceedings were per se admissible in evidence and were necessary for the just decision of the case. Learned counsel for respondents No.2, 4, 6 and 8 has submitted that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. had been rightly dismissed as the petitioner was merely trying to delay the trial. The judgments and decrees passed in the civil proceedings were in the knowledge of the petitioner and should have been placed on record as early as possible. Crl.Rev.No. 2932 of 2010 3 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “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 at any stage of trial can summon any person as a witness or recall and re- examine any person already examined if it is necessary for the just decision of the case. Admittedly, there was civil litigation between the parties qua agreement to sell in question. The judgments and decrees passed by the civil Court are very material for the just decision of the case. Although the evidence of the prosecution was closed by order vide order dated 26.10.2010 but in the interest of justice, the trial Court should have allowed the application moved by the prosecution so that the judgments and decrees passed by the civil Court could be proved on record. Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. Even law bends before justice. Duty to do justice is paramount. Crl.Rev.No. 2932 of 2010 4 Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 12.10.2010 is set aside. Consequently, the application moved by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is clarified that the accused would be at liberty to lead any further evidence in their defence after the evidence is led by the prosecution in terms of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (SABINA) JUDGE August 11, 2011 anita