In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-30643 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:21.11.2008 Paramjeet alias Pardhan alias Bablu .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 10.11.2008 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for examining three additional witnesses namely Constable Kuldeep Singh, ASI Rajender Parshad and Inspector Bharat Singh filed by the respondent-State has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR in the case was registered on 13.12.2004 and challan was filed by the Police on 24.11.2005. The prosecution then examined 18 witnesses and closed its evidence on 13.5.2008. Thereafter, on 8.11.2008 an order (Annexure-P.2) was passed to the effect that no further evidence is to be produced by any of the accused, besides after the conclusion of defence arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he intends to move an application under Cr. Misc. No.M-30643 of 2008 [2] Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning certain witnesses to prove certain documents against Paramjeet Singh against whom a supplementary challan was filed. On the same day an application dated 8.11.2008 (Annexure-P.3) was filed by the Public Prosecutor. Another order dated 8.11.2008 (Annexure-P.2) was passed regarding moving of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The case was adjourned to 10.11.2008 for filing reply to the application as well as arguments on the same. The petitioner filed his reply dated 10.11.2008 (Annexure-P.4) to the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The application filed by the prosecution has been, it is submitted, erroneously allowed by the learned trial Court by its impugned order dated 10.11.2008 (Annexure-P.1). It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after conclusion of arguments, the prosecution was not entitled to file an application seeking summoning of additional witnesses and fill in the lacuna of the prosecution case. In fact, the defence of the petitioner had been disclosed. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter and perusing the record, I find no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order dated 10.11.2008 (Annexure-P.1) would show that the prosecution had sought to examine additional witnesses, namely, Constable Kuldeep Singh, ASI Rajender Parshad and Inspector Bharat Singh on the ground that these witnesses could not be examined out of inadvertence as these witnesses were cited in the supplementary challan filed against Paramjeet (petitioner) in the month of August 2005. It was held that the Court finds that examination of the aforesaid witness was essential for the just decision of the case. Therefore, Cr. Misc. No.M-30643 of 2008 [3] once the learned trial Court has reached the conclusion that the examination of the said witnesses was essential for the just decision of the case, no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to enable the Court to arrive at the truth or otherwise of the matter under trial and if necessary by summoning additional witnesses. Therefore, if the object of the section is being carried out the same would not result in any illegality or irregularity to vitiate the order. In any case, it has also not been shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by the examination of the said three witnesses. The said witnesses in fact are official witnesses. The defence of the petitioner is not, in any manner, shown to be prejudiced by their examination. Merely stating that the defence of the petitioner would be prejudiced would not mean that his defence is indeed prejudiced. The nature and extent of the prejudice is liable to be shown. Therefore, the learned trial Court having exercised its jurisdiction to summon the additional witnesses in the facts and circumstances of the case is just and proper. Accordingly, there is no merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition and the same is dismissed. November 21, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*