[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirbhai Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 March, 2026
CRM-M-13379-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.135
CRM-M-13379-2026
Date of Decision: 13.03.2026
NIRBHAI SINGH ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present:- Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*****
MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral)
1. This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for setting aside the order dated 06.12.2025 passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barnala in FIR No. 21 dated
15.04.2019, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 408 IPC
at Police Station Mehal Kalan, District Barnala, whereby the second
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent has been
allowed at the fag end of the trial.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that
during the course of trial arising out of FIR No. 21 dated 15.04.2019, the
prosecution moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking
summoning of Dr. Inderjit Singh, handwriting and fingerprint expert, Patiala,
in order to prove the report allegedly pertaining to certain pronotes and
receipts relied upon by the prosecution. It was stated in the application that
the said report formed part of the police record and the proposed witness was
necessary for proper adjudication of the case.
ANU
2026.03.16 18:19
I am the author of this document
Chandigarh
The said application was opposed on behalf of the accused-petitioner by
filing a reply, inter alia contending that the proposed witness had not been
cited in the list of witnesses during investigation and that the application had
been moved at a belated stage only to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution
case. It was further submitted that the investigating agency had already
obtained the report from FSL and therefore summoning of the said witness
was unnecessary. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barnala, after
hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material placed
on record, allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and ordered
that the said handwriting and fingerprint expert be summoned as a witness
for the purpose of evidence in the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
impugned order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Barnala is illegal and liable to be set aside. It is submitted that
the prosecution had already availed opportunity to lead its evidence and the
present application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of a
handwriting and fingerprint expert is in fact the second application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C., which has been moved at a highly belated stage of the
trial only to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case. It is further contended
that the investigating agency had already obtained a report from the
Government FSL Laboratory, and therefore there was no necessity to
summon a private handwriting and fingerprint expert to prove a similar fact.
According to the petitioner, permitting such evidence would amount to
allowing the prosecution to improve its case at a late stage. It is also argued
that the said expert was never cited as a witness during investigation, his
ANU
2026.03.16 18:19
I am the author of this document
Chandigarh
statement was not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and he was not
included in the list of witnesses; therefore, he cannot be permitted to be
examined as a witness during the course of trial.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. H.S. Wadhwa, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent-State and has contested the present petition.
6. Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate, has made appearance on behalf of
respondent-complainant and filed memo of appearance, which is taken on
record.
7. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the
complainant, has opposed the present petition while supporting the
impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. It has been submitted that
the proposed witness is a material witness whose examination is necessary
for proper adjudication of the case and the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings to secure the ends of justice.
It is further submitted that the accused would suffer no prejudice as he
would have full opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record.
9. The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barnala, whereby the application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the handwriting and fingerprint
expert has been allowed. The contention of the petitioner that the application
was the second application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and was moved at a
belated stage does not persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned
ANU
2026.03.16 18:19
I am the author of this document
Chandigarh
order. It is well settled that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is of a very
wide amplitude and can be exercised by the Court at any stage of inquiry or
trial if the evidence sought to be adduced appears to be necessary for the just
decision of the case. Merely because the application was moved at a later
stage of the trial would not by itself render the order illegal, particularly
when the trial Court has found that the proposed witness is relevant for
establishing the material facts of the case.
10. The argument that the prosecution had already obtained the
report of the Government FSL Laboratory and therefore there was no need to
examine a private expert is also devoid of merit. The trial Court has only
permitted the summoning of the witness so that the report relied upon by the
prosecution may be duly proved on record. The evidentiary value of such
testimony would always remain subject to cross-examination and
appreciation at the stage of final adjudication. Therefore, no prejudice can be
said to have been caused to the petitioner merely by permitting the
examination of the said expert.
11. Similarly, the submission that the proposed witness was not
cited in the list of witnesses or that his statement was not recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted as a ground to disallow the
application. The object of Section 311 Cr.P.C is to enable the Court to
summon any person as a witness if his evidence appears to be essential for
the just decision of the case. The provision is not restricted only to those
witnesses whose statements were recorded during investigation. The trial
Court, in its discretion, is competent to summon any such witness if the
circumstances of the case so warrant. From the perusal of the impugned
ANU
2026.03.16 18:19
I am the author of this document
Chandigarh
order, it is evident that the learned trial Court has considered the relevant
aspects and has come to the conclusion that the examination of the proposed
witness would assist the Court in arriving at a just conclusion and that no
prejudice would be caused to the accused as he would have the right to
cross-examine the witness.
12. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any
illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 06.12.2025
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barnala warranting
interference in exercise of powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
13. Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same
is hereby dismissed.
14. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
13.03.2026 JUDGE
Anu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
ANU
2026.03.16 18:19
I am the author of this document
Chandigarh
