Punjab-Haryana High Court
Varun Bhandari vs Chhavi Bhandari Vasuja on 30 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014975
132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-5381-2025
Date of decision: 30.01.2025
Varun Bhandari ....Petitioner
Versus
Chhavi Bhandari Vasuja ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate
for the petitioner.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
seeking quashing of order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P-5) in NACT-60344-
2022, whereby, an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for placing on
record relinquish deed No.4168 dated 07.06.2021 and 4169 dated 07.06.2021,
sale deed No.8923 dated 26.07.2022 and police complaint filed before the
Delhi Police was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Faridabad.
Brief facts of the case are that the complaint (supra) has been filed
by the complainant/respondent under Sections 138/142 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (in short 'the Act') against the petitioner. The respondent had
share in the residential house No.100 & 101, Sector 11, Rohini, Delhi and
petitioner agreed to purchase the share of the complainant/respondent for a sum
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014975
of Rs.75,00,000/-. The complainant/respondent went to the office of Sub-
Registrar, Rohini and signed the sale deed in the presence of the witnesses.
Thereafter, the petitioner had issued two cheques bearing Nos.416598 &
416596 total amounting to Rs.8,00,000/- on 22.07.2022 against the sale deed
but the same were dishonoured on presentation in the bank for encashment and
thus, the instant case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that after the
preliminary evidence, the petitioner was summoned and the plea of defence
under Section 263(g) of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. The petitioner admitted his
signatures on the cheque but stated that the cheques were issued in lieu of
security. He further submits that thereafter, the petitioner filed an application
under Section 145(2) of the Cr.P.C. to cross-examine the respondent and the
respondent was cross-examined on 22.05.2024. In response, the respondent
filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for placing on record the
relinquishment deeds mentioned in paragraph 3 of the petition and the same
was wrongly allowed by the learned trial Court since the respondent while
filing the complaint mentioned about the sale deed yet did not produce the same
at the time of the institution of the complaint. All the documents which were
allowed to be produced on record after the passing of the impugned order were
in the knowledge of the respondent at the time of the filing of the complaint as
she was the executant of the said documents. Further, all the documents existed
prior to the institution of the complaint and the application under Section 311 of
Cr.P.C. is merely an attempt to fill up lacuna in the case of the respondent
which is prejudicial to the petitioner.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014975
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing
the records, it transpires that the relinquishment deeds bearing No.4168 dated
07.06.2021 and No.4169 dated 07.06.2021, and sale deed bearing No.8923
dated 26.07.2022 are essential and material for the just and proper adjudication
of the trial. The evidence which is being sought to be produced on record,
would be necessary for deciding the controversy effectively. Reliance in this
regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in
'Varsha Garg Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others' Cr. Appeal No.
1021 of 2022 and the judgment of this Court passed in 'Vinod Kumar Vs. State
of Haryana and others' CRR No.377 of 2020.
A two judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. N. Patil
vs. K. Niranjan 2021(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 310, examined the scope of the
power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C and speaking through Justice Ajay Rastogi,
the following was observed:
"Object underlying Section 311 Cr.P.C is that there may
not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either
party in bringing valuable evidence on record or leaving
ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined
from either side. The determinative factor is whether it
is essential to the just decision of the case. The
significant expression that occurs is 'at any stage of
enquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code'. It
is however, to be borne in mind that the discretionary
power conferred under Section 311 CrPC has to be
exercised judiciously, as it is always said wider the
power, greater is the necessity of caution while exercise
of judicious discretion."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union
of India and another AIR 1991 SC 1346 has held that where the object of the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014975
accused in recalling witnesses already examined in the case is to prolong the
trial of the case, the Court would not allow such application. Moreover, the
power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C is dictated by exigency of the situation
based on the principle of fair play and goodwill and existence of the evidence
being essential for the just adjudication of the case is the only guiding factor
and that only the ends of justice requires the examination of any person which
would depend to the facts and circumstances of each case. It was further held
that it is obligatory on the part of the court to summon the witness in case his
evidence appears to be essential for just decision of the case. Such power may
be exercised at any stage. However, the power is circumscribed by the principle
underlying the section, that is, the evidence to be obtained must be essential for
just decision of the case.
A Division Bench of this Court in Sukhdev Singh vs. State of
Punjab 1982 Cr. LJ 2201 has held as under:
"The discretion is required to be exercised by the Court
keeping in view the just decision of the case unmindful
of the fact whether any party before it gains or losses
from the exercise of such discretion under this section.
There is no doubt that object of the section is not to
enable any one or the other party to fill up the gaps of
its case. The section is not to be used to enable it to
repair the lacuna. The sole criterion in such a case
should be whether the exercise of power under section is
necessary in the interest of justice. While exercising this
discretion the court has to keep in its mind the well-
known principle of law that the order should not operate
as a rebuttal of the case set up by the defence after the
prosecution case is closed. The use of this section
cannot be limited only to something arising eximporviso
which no human agency could see. The mere fact that
evidence is permitted to be taken after the entire
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:014975
prosecution case is over is in itself in excess of the
powers of the Court. No hard and fast rules can be
prescribed as to when and at what stage this discretion
should be exercised. The anxiety for justice is
paramount an should be kept in view. The Court should
be unmindful of the fact of the use of the discretion in
favour or against any party. The principle that such
evidence should not demolish the case set up by the
accused in his defence, if he has done so should be
present in the mind of the judge at the time when he
takes a decision. The powers of the Court under Section
311 which are very wide cannot be limited. The
discretion can be exercised by the Court at any stage of
the case, but on justifiable grounds".
Keeping in view the above discussion, this Court finds the learned
Court below has correctly adverted to the factual matrix in the light of the
provision of Section 311 of Cr.P.C. and thus, this Court finds no merit in the
present petition and, as such, the same is dismissed.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
30.01.2025
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
