Punjab-Haryana High Court
Varun Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 November, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-61979-2025 1
133 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-61979-2025
Date of Decision: 06.11.2025
Varun Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. K.S. Nalwa, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vismaad S. Bajwa, Advocate,
Ms. Ashima Attri, Advocate and
Mr. Ashmeet K. Shah, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
1. Present petition has been filed for quashing of impugned
order dated 03.10.2025, wherein learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Rupnagar has accepted the application filed under Section 311
Cr.P.C. dated 07.05.2025 filed by the prosecution seeking summoning of
three additional prosecution witnesses in case FIR No.16 dated
22.03.2024 under Sections 380, 457 of IPC (Section 120-B and 201 IPC
added lateron) registered at Police Station Sadar Rupnagar, District
Rupnagar.
2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that the FIR in the present
case was lodged on the statement of Sukhwinder Singh, Chief Chemists
GGSSTP, Rupnagar. It was alleged that on 18.03.2024 at about 9:00 am
the coal lab staff found all locks of the main door and strong room in
broken condition. All the three locks of Almirah containing the 16 No.
samples were also found to be in broken condition. The samples were kept
in joint custody in locked almirah in strong room at coal testing Lab
1 of 10
GGSSTP for onward submission to independent coal testing lab CSIR
-Dhanabad. It was alleged that attempt was made to tamper with these 16
No. samples. It was alleged that the coal samples locked jointly in a cold
testing laboratory were of great significance and huge financial stakes (in
crores) are involved on the test results of theses samples and thus, the
safety of these samples holds upmost importance. The CCTV recording
and one CCTV camera (TP link make) were also found stolen with an
intention to misplace the record of testing of samples. Thus, the request
was made to register the FIR and take legal action. On registration of the
FIR, the investigation commenced. On completion of investigation,
challan was presented and on framing of the charges, the trial commenced.
During the trial, the prosecution filed an application under Section 311
Cr.P.C. for summoning the prosecution witnesses namely:-
(i) Navin Lohia (Deputy Chief Chemist)
ii) Manish Bhatara (Senior Chemist) and
iii) Ravinder Khanna (Deputy Chief Engineer)
Learned trial Court on hearing both the sides accepted the
same vide impugned order dated 03.10.2025. Hence aggrieved, the
petitioner, who is one of the accused in the case, has approached this
Court impugning the same.
2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
that in December, 2023 the petitioner joined Quality Services and
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (QSS), a company dealing in coal sample monitoring
and was employed at the Noida Office of the company. He was appointed
as Assistant General Manager (Operations) at Noida Branch w.e.f.
19.12.2023. The employer company of the petitioner i.e. QSS being in the
business of coal sample monitoring, was hired by M/s MDCWL Ltd.
2 of 10
(Monnet Group) who was in contract with PSPCL for supply of coal. The
services of the company of the petitioner was hired for representing M/s
MDCWL Ltd. before PSPCL w.e.f. 15.02.2024 for witnessing the
sampling process of the coal. The petitioner was working from home, as
per the instructions of the Company. He submits that the petitioner was
informed that the process of coal sampling and its sealing would be
conducted on 19.03.2024. As per the prosecution version, the officials of
GGSSTP started their duty at around 9:00 am on 18.03.2024 and they
found the locks of the main door and strong room of the lab in a broken
condition. He submits that it has come on the record that the complaint
dated 18.03.2024 was received at the Police Station on 22.03.2024. On
19.03.2024, the process of making samples of the coal were to be
forwarded to CSIR, Dhanbad and was to be conducted in the lab of
GGSSTP in the presence of their officials. The petitioner travelled to
Ropar from Phagwara in the morning of 19.03.2024 to be present during
the course of preparation of samples. The enmity process was completed
on 19.03.2024 after the approval of the Chief Engineer GGSSTP in the
presence of the police official. The samples which were prepared on
19.03.2024 were stored in strong room of GGSSTP, Ropar. He submits
that, surprisingly, when the samples were prepared on 19.03.2024, there
was no reference of even any attempt of tampering having been made on
17.03.2024. He submits that it is apparent that the petitioner was neither
named in the FIR nor he met Arvind Kumar and Pushpinder Pandey on or
before 17.03.2024. The prosecution has examined and cross-examined the
witnesses from PW-1 to PW-12. It is hereinafter the application was filed
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the three additional witnesses
3 of 10
who were not even cited as the witnesses by the prosecution. He submits
that learned trial Court had allowed the same in a highly casual manner.
He submits that PW-2/ASI Kamal Kishore has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that on 22.03.2024, he received the complaint EX
PW-2/A from Sukhwinder Singh, Chief Chemist and thereafter another
detailed application Ex. PW2/A(1). He has stated that the petitioner was
nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of co-
accused Arvind Kumar. He submits that this witness has deposed in cross-
examination that there was a delay of 04 days in registration of the FIR.
He contended that this witness has admitted that the accused persons were
not found in any CCTV camera. However, learned trial Court has not
taken into consideration these depositions while dealing with the
application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. He submits that learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has also ignored the evidence of the
complainant/Sukhwinder Singh, who appeared before the trial Court as
PW-4. It is submitted that on the perusal of the depositions of the
prosecution witnesses PW-2, PW-4 and PW-10, it is apparent that the
filing of the application under Section 311Cr.P.C. by the prosecution is
nothing but an attempt to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case. It is
submitted that as per the law settled, the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C.
cannot be invoked for filling up the lacuna in the case, however, the same
are to be invoked only when the Court is of the opinion that the additional
evidence sought to be produced before the Court is just essential for the
decision of the case. He relies upon the judgments passed in 'Zahira
Habibullah Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat (2006 3 SCC 374'; 'Rajaram
Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2013) 14 SCC 461';
4 of 10
'Natasha Singh Vs. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741'; 'Ratanlal Vs. Prahlad Jat,
(2017) 9 SCC 340' and 'Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2023) SCC
OnLine SC 1086' and thus, submits that the prosecution by filling the
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has blatantly made an attempt to fill
up the lacuna in its case and thus, the petitioner is seriously prejudiced by
the same. He, thus submits that learned trial Court has miserably failed to
weight the facts and circumstances of the case on the anvil of the law
settled and hence the same being unsustainable in the eyes of law,
deserves to be set aside.
3. The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the record. It is deciphered from the facts and circumstances of
the case that the FIR in the present case was lodged on the statement of
complainant/Sukhwinder Singh. As per the allegation, the theft has been
found to be committed in the test laboratory where the locks were found
to be broken and the attempt was made to tamper with the samples. CCTV
recording and one CCTV camera were also found to be stolen to destroy
the evidence. Needless to say that on tampering with the samples in the
lab, a huge financial stakes are involved. There is no denial to the fact that
the FIR was lodged on statement of Sukhwinder Singh, Chief Chemists
GGSSTP, Rupnagar. The witnesses, (i) Navin Lohia (Deputy Chief
Chemist), ii) Manish Bhatara (Senior Chemist) and iii) Ravinder Khanna
(Deputy Chief Engineer) to be summoned were not initially cited as the
witnesses, however, the prosecution found the examination of the
witnesses to be summoned essential for the just decision of the case and
hence, filed the application for their examination before the Court. The
main thrust of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is
5 of 10
to the effect that the prosecution has already examined its witnesses and as
the same were not sufficient to prove its case, hence, in order to fill up the
lacuna the present application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed. There
is no denial to the fact that as per the law settled the provisions of Section
311 Cr.P.C. are to be invoked by the Court if the evidence sought to be
produced are found essential for the just decision of the case. Every
application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be ignored considering
the same to be as the filling up the lacuna if the quality evidence is being
produced before the Court. The purpose of the trial is in pursuit of the
truth. In the judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, 'Rajaram
Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and another (2013) 14 SCC 461',
Hon'ble the Supreme Court had laid down the parameters for invoking the
power under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which are as follows:-
"While dealing with an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read
along with Section 138 of the Evidence Act, we feel the following
principles will have to be borne in mind by the Courts:
i) Whether the Court is right in thinking that the new
evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence sought to
be led in under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a just
decision of a case?
ii) The exercise of the widest discretionary power
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should ensure that the judgment
should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive
speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of
justice would be defeated.
iii) If evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be
essential to the just decision of the case, it is the power of
the Court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine
any such person.
iv) The exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should
6 of 10
be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth
or obtaining proper proof for such facts, which will lead to
a just and correct decision of the case.
v) The exercise of the said power cannot be dubbed as
filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case, unless the facts
and circumstances of the case make it apparent that the
exercise of power by the Court would result in causing
serious prejudice to the accused, resulting in miscarriage
of justice.
vi) The wide discretionary power should be exercised
judiciously and not arbitrarily.
vii) The Court must satisfy itself that it was in every respect
essential to examine such a witness or to recall him for
further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of
the case.
viii) The object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. simultaneously
imposes a duty on the Court to determine the truth and to
render a just decision.
ix) The Court arrives at the conclusion that additional
evidence is necessary, not because it would be impossible
to pronounce the judgment without it, but because there
would be a failure of justice without such evidence being
considered.
x) Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense
should be the safe guard, while exercising the discretion.
The Court should bear in mind that no party in a trial can
be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if proper
evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not
brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court
should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to
be rectified.
xi) The Court should be conscious of the position that after
all the trial is basically for the prisoners and the Court
should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner
possible. In that parity of reasoning, it would be safe to err
7 of 10
in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather than
protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at the
cost of the accused. The Court should bear in mind that
improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary
power, may lead to undesirable results.
xii) The additional evidence must not be received as a
disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of
the party.
xiii) The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the
evidence that is likely to be tendered, would be germane to
the issue involved and also ensure that an opportunity of
rebuttal is given to the other party.
xiv) The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore,
be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of
justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be
exercised with care, caution and circumspection. The Court
should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the
accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant
of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned,
must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a
human right."
4. For resolving the issue involved in the present case, the
provision of Section 311 Cr.P.C. is necessary which read as under:
"311. Power to summon material witnesses, 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."
8 of 10
Thus, it is evident that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
are sacrosanct in nature and can be invoked at any stage of the trial, if the
Court finds that examination of witness sought to be summoned is
essential for the just decision of the case.
5. From the bare reading of the provision of Section 311 Cr.P.C.,
it is apparent that the Court has ample power to re-examine or recall any
such person whose evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of
the case. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swapan Kumar
Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328 held
as under:-
"12. It is well settled that the power conferred under
Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet
the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for
strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with
great caution and circumspection. The court has vide power
under this Section to even recall witnesses for re-
examination or further examination, necessary in the
interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after
taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
each case. The power under this provision shall not be
exercised if the court is of the view that the application has
been filed as an abuse of the process of law."
6. Thus, weighing the facts and circumstances of the present
case, on the anvil of the law settled this Court is of the opinion that the
evidences sought to be produced by the prosecution, are just essential for
the decision of the case. Hence, the Court finds that the evidence of these
witnesses should be allowed to be brought on the record, in the best
interest of justice. The Court finds that bringing on record these evidences
9 of 10
would not prejudice the interest of the petitioner, thus, the Court finds no
infirmity in the impugned order passed. However, it is being clarified that
learned trial Court would grant one effective opportunity to each of the 03
witnesses for their examination. The petitioner and the other accused
persons would be granted the opportunity to cross-examine these 03
witnesses. Learned trial Court would take into consideration that the
prosecution do not unnecessarily prolong the trial.
7. Needless to say that if the trial Court finds that the petitioner
is misusing the opportunity granted to him and delaying the trial, it would
be at liberty to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
8. Petition is dismissed in above-mentioned terms.
06.11.2025 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
ps-I JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
10 of 10
