Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shyokat Ali vs Firm Nourangrai Brijlal ... on 21 September, 2023

Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit

[2023:RJ-JD:30977]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3340/2022

Shyokat Ali S/o Shri Bag Ali, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Dhani Araiyan Ward No. 9, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioner Versus Firm Nourangrai Brijlal, Gandhi Chowk, Nohar Through Proprietor Shyam Sunder S/o Gaurishankar, R/o Ward No. 13, Nohar Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

                                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. Ganga Ram
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Judgment

Reserved on 13/09/2023 Pronounced on 21/09/2023

01- ;ksX; vf/koDrk ;kph us ;g ;kfpdk vUrxZr /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- v/khuLFk U;k;ky; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] uksgj] ftyk guqekux<+ ds vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 17-05-2022 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh xbZ gSA 02- la{ksi esa ekeys ds rF; bl izdkj ls gSa fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa QeZ uksjax jk; c`tyky cuke ';ksdr vyh ds vuoku ls /kkjk 138 ,u-vkbZ- ,DV dk ekeyk yafcr gSA ftlesa cgl vafre ds LVst ij izR;FkhZ }kjk izkFkZuk&i= vUrxZr /kkjk 311 lhvkj-ih-lh- izLrqr dj QeZ dk jftLVªs'ku izek.k&i= lk{; esa vkdj fjdkWMZ ij ykus dh vuqefr gsrq fuosnu djus ij izkFkZuk&i= vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 17-05-2022 }kjk 10]000@& :i;s dh dksLV ij Lohdkj fd;k x;k] ftlls O;fFkr gksdj ;g fuxjkuh izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 03- cgl lquh xbZA 04- fo}ku vf/koDrk fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk esjk /;ku bl U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar Pramendra Kumar Jaluthariya Vs. Sumerchand Jaluthariya, 2019(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 391 dh vksj vkdf"kZr djrs gq, ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd izdj.k cgl vafre dh LVst ij fnukad 07-02-2020 dks fu;r Fkk] ftl ij vafre cgl lquh xbZ vkSj iqu% fnukad 04-03-2022 dks cgl lquh xbZ] mlds i'pkr

[2023:RJ-JD:30977] (2 of 8) [CRLMP-3340/2022]

vkosnu izLrqr fd;k x;k gS tks Lo;a dh lk{; ds 42 ekg ckn Lacuna fulfill djus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA tks izkFkZuk&i= nsjhuk is'k djus ls izkFkZuk&i= [kkfjt fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk] tcfd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk izkFkZuk&i= Lohdkj dj fof/kd Hkwy dh xbZ gSA 05- izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gS] dsoy ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd mifLFkr FksA 06- eSaus fo}ku vf/koDrk fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar o i=koyh dk lko/kkuhiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA esjk fu"d"kZ bl izdkj ls gS fd %& 07- ;g vk{ksfir vkns'k izkFkZuk&i= vUrxZr /kkjk 311 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA ftlds laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Sethuraman vs Rajamanickam, (2009)5 SCC 153 ds ekeys esa ;g fl)kar izfrikfjnr fd;k

x;k gS fd /kkjk 91 lhvkj-ih-lh- o /kkjk 311 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= ij tks vkns'k fd;k tkrk gS] og Interlocutory Nature dk gksrk gS] ftlds fo:) /kkjk 397¼2½ lhvkj-ih-lh- ds eqrkfcd fuxjkuh ugha dh tk ldrhA 08- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds eqrkfcd /kkjk 311 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds izkFkZuk&i= ij fn;k x;k vkns'k Interlocutory vkns'k gksus dk fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;s tkus dh lwjr esa vc bl iz'u ij ;g fopkj fd;k tkuk gS fd D;k ,sls vkns'k dks /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr pqukSrh nh tk ldrh gS vkSj ;fn nh tk ldrh gS rks /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- dh ;kfpdk fdl voLFkk esa U;k;ky; fopkj dj vkns'k esa gLr{ksi dj ldrk gSA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre }kjk Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809, ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds Amar Nath And others Vs. state of Haryana And others AIR 1977 SC 2185 o Madhu Limaye Vs. The State Of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 47 ds vk/kkj ij iSjk la[;k 29 o 30 esa fuEukuqlkj foospu fd;k x;k gS%&

29. This leads us to another facet of the submission made by the learned counsel that even the avenue of proceeding under Section 482 CrPC is barred as far as the appellants are concerned. As held in Amar Nath[(1977) 4 SCC 137] and with which conclusion we agree, if an interlocutory order is not revisable due to the prohibition contained in Section 397(2) CrPC that cannot be circumvented by resort to Section 482 CrPC. There can hardly be any serious dispute on this proposition.

30. What then is the utility of Section 482 CrPC? This was considered and explained in Madhu Limaye

[2023:RJ-JD:30977] (3 of 8) [CRLMP-3340/2022]

[(1977) 4 SCC 551] which noticed the prohibition in Section 397(2) CrPC and at the same time the expansive text of Section 482 CrPC and posed the question: In such a situation, what is the harmonious way out? This Court then proceeded to answer the question in the following manner: "10. ... In such a situation, what is the harmonious way out? In our opinion, a happy solution of this problem would be to say that the bar provided in sub-section (2) of Section 397 operates only in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court, meaning thereby that the High Court will have no power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order. Then in accordance with one of the other principles enunciated above, the inherent power will come into play, there being no other provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. But then, if the order assailed is purely of an interlocutory character which could be corrected in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court under the 1898 Code, the High Court will refuse to exercise its inherent power. But in case the impugned order clearly brings about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the Court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in Section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power by the High Court. But such cases would be few and far between. The High Court must exercise the inherent power very sparingly."

09- mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa izfrikfnr fl)kar ds ifjizs{; esa ;g fof/kd fLFkfr Li"V gS fd lkekU;r;k% tc /kkjk 397¼2½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds eqrkfcd fjfotu Interlocutory vkns'k dh ugha gks ldrh] ml voLFkk esa /kkjk 482 lhvkj- ih-lh- ds rgr Hkh dk;Zokgh ugha dh tk ldrhA ijarq bldk viokn ;g fn;k x;k gS fd U;k;ky; abuse of process of court ;k ends of justice ds fy, viokfnr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa Interlocutory vkns'k esa Hkh gLr{ksi dj ldrk gSA ,sls ekeyksa esa Hkh mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fdQk;r ls /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr vkns'k fd;k tkuk pkfg,A 10- mDr fof/kd fLFkfr dks en~nsutj j[krs gq, gLrxr ekeys esa fopkj fd;k x;kA gLrxr vkns'k fjfotu ;ksX; vkns'k ugha gSA /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr bl vkns'k esa gLr{ksi fd;k tk, vFkok ugha] ml ij fu"d"kZ ls igys /kkjk 311 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds laca/k esa fof/kd fLFkfr ij fopkj fd;k tk jgk gSA

[2023:RJ-JD:30977] (4 of 8) [CRLMP-3340/2022]

11- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk -Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 1346 ds iSjk la[;k 6 esa ;g Li"V fd;k

x;k gS fd /kkjk 311 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds izko/kku dk mi;ksx fu.kZ; ls iwoZ dHkh Hkh fd;k tk ldrk gSA bl U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds iSjk la[;k 6 o 21 esa fuEukuqlkj mYys[k fd;k x;k gS%&

6. Before adverting to the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, we would examine in general the scope and intent of Section 540 of the old Code (corresponding to Section 311 of the new Code).

21. At the risk of repetition it may be said that Section 540 allows the Court to invoke its inherent power at any stage, as long as the Court retains seisin of the criminal proceeding,without qualifying any limitation or prohibition. Needless to say that an enquiry or trial in a criminal proceeding comes to art end or reaches its finality when the order or judgment is pronounced and until then the Court has power to use this section.

12- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar Varsha Garg V/S The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 1021 of 2022 judgment dated 8.8.2022 [2022 SCC OnLine SC 986] ds ekeys esa /kkjk 311

n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds izko/kku ij foLr`r fopkj fd;k x;k gS vkSj iSjk la[;k 28] 29] 31 o 32 esa fuEukuqlkj mYys[k fd;k x;k gS%&

28. -------------------- we now examine Section 311 of CrPC. Section 311 provides that the Court "may":

(i) Summon any person as a witness or to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; and

(ii) Recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined.

This power can be exercised at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the CrPC. The latter part of Section 311 states that the Court "shall" summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person "if his evidence appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case". Section 311 contains a power upon the Court in broad terms. The statutory provision must be read purposively, to achieve the intent of the statute to aid in the discovery of truth.

29. The first part of the statutory provision which uses the expression "may" postulates that the power can be exercised at any stage of an inquiry,

[2023:RJ-JD:30977] (5 of 8) [CRLMP-3340/2022]

trial or other proceeding. The latter part of the provision mandates the recall of a witness by the Court as it uses the expression "shall summon and examine or recall and reexamine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case". Essentiality of the evidence of the person who is to be examined coupled with the need for the just decision of the case constitute the touchstone which must guide the decision of the Court. The first part of the statutory provision is discretionary while the latter part is obligatory.

31. Summing up the position as it obtained from various decisions of this Court, namely Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P. (1978) 2 SCC 518, State of W.B. v. Tulsidas Mundhra (1963)Supp 1 SCR 1, Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra (1967) 3 SCR 415 , Masalti v. State of U.P.(1964) 8 SCR 133, Rajeswar Prosad Misra v. State of W.B. (1966) 1 SCR 178 and R.B. Mithani v. State of Maharashtra (1971) 1 SCC 523 , the Court held:

"27. The principle of law that emerges from the views expressed by this Court in the above decisions is that the criminal court has ample power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any such person even if the evidence on both sides is closed and the jurisdiction of the court must obviously be dictated by exigency of the situation, and fair play and good sense appear to be the only safe guides and that only the requirements of justice command the examination of any person which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case."

32. The power of the court is not constrained by the closure of evidence. Therefore, it is amply clear from the above discussion that the broad powers under Section 311 are to be governed by the requirement of justice. The power must be exercised wherever the court finds that any evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. The statutory provision goes to emphasise that the court is not a hapless bystander in the derailment of justice. Quite to the contrary, the court has a vital role to discharge in ensuring that the cause of discovering truth as an aid in the realization of justice is manifest.

13- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkar SATBIR SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ...../2023 (OUT OF SLP(Crl.) No.1258/2022) judgment dated 29.8.2023 [2023 SCC OnLine

[2023:RJ-JD:30977] (6 of 8) [CRLMP-3340/2022]

SC 1086] ds ekeys esa Hkh /kkjk 311 lhvkj-ih-lh- ij foLr`r fopkj fd;k x;k vkSj

iSjk la[;k 10 o 11 esa fuEukuqlkj foospu fd;k x;k gS%&

10. In Manju Devi v State of Rajasthan, (2019) 6 SCC 203, this Court emphasized that a discretionary power like Section 311,CrPC is to enable the Court to keep the record straight and to clear any ambiguity regarding the evidence, whilst also ensuring no prejudice is caused to anyone. A note of caution was sounded in Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328 as under:

'10.The first part of this section which is per- missive gives purely discretionary authority to the criminal court and enables it at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code to act in one of the three ways, namely, (i) to summon any person as a witness; or (ii) to examine any per-son in attendance, though not summoned as a witness;or (iii) to recall and re-

             examine any         person already examined. The
             second part, which is mandatory, imposes            an

obligation on the court (i) to summon and examine or (ii) to recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case.

11.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 re call 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.

12.Where the prosecution evidence has been closed long back and the reasons for non-

examination of the witness earlier are not satisfactory, the summoning of the witness at belated stage would cause great prejudice to the accused and should not be allowed. Similarly, the court should not encourage the filing of successive applications for recall of a witness under this provision.'

[2023:RJ-JD:30977] (7 of 8) [CRLMP-3340/2022]

11. In Harendra Rai v State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC1023, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court was of the opinion that Section 311, CrPC should be invoked when '... it is essential for the just decision of the case.'

14- /kkjk 311 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds fofHkUu U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa tks foospu fd;k x;k gS ml ifjizs{; esa ;g Li"V gS fd /kkjk 311 lhvkj-ih-lh- dk mi;ksx dj U;k;ky; fu.kZ; ls iwoZ fdlh Hkh LVst ij vkns'k ns ldrk gS] tks vkns'k ekeys ds U;k;ksfpr fu.kZ; ds fy, vko';d gksA 15- mDRk fof/kd fLFkfr dks en~nsutj j[krs gq, gLrxr ekeys ij fopkj fd;k x;kA gLrxr ekeys esa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk tks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k] mlesa Li"V :i ls vafdr fd;k gS fd cgl vafre dh LVst ij izkFkZuk&i= /kkjk 311 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk dk is'k fd;k x;k vkSj ifjoknh }kjk vius QeZ dk jftLVªs'ku izek.k&i= dh izfrfyfi i=koyh esa iwoZ esa gh is'k dj j[kh Fkh] bl dkj.k ls U;k; foQy u gksA blfy, nLrkost dks fjdkWMZ ij fy;k x;k rFkk ;kfpdkdrkZ&vfHk;qDr dks 10]000@& :i;s dksLV fnyk, tkus dk Hkh vkns'k fn;k x;kA 16- bl vkns'k esa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk e/; izns'k mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.M ihB ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar [kwcflag cuke LVsV vkWQ e/; izns'k ,elhvkjlh ua- 26900@2017 fu.kZ; fnukad 08-03-2018 ds iSjk la[;k 22 ij fopkj fd;k x;k] ftlesa ;g Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd cgl vafre [kRe gksus ds i'pkr Hkh /kkjk 311 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds izko/kku ds rgr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk ldrk gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar euku 'ks[k ,oa vU; cuke if'pe caxky jkT; ,oa vU; ¼2014½ 13 ,l-lh-lh- 59 ij fopkj fd;k x;k] ftlesa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ;g Li"V fd;k fd ^^U;k;ky; dk y{; gS fd og lR; dh [kkst djsa o /kkjk 311 lhvkj-ih-lh- U;k;ky; dks vf/kd`r djrh gS fd og tkap ;k vU; dk;Zokgh ;k fdlh Hkh Lrj ij fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks lk{; ds :i esa cqyk ldrk gS ;k fcuk cqyk, Hkh gkftj O;fDr dk ijh{k.k dj ldrk gS] fdlh lk{kh dks iqu% cqyk ldrk gS] ;fn mldk lk{; U;k; fu.kZ; ds fy, t:jh gS** 17- ,slh fLFkfr esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ij fopkj dj ekeys ds U;k;ksfpr fu.kZ; ds fy, fjdkWMZ ij igys ls gh ekStwn izfrfyfi ls lacaf/kr QeZ ds jftLVªs'ku dh izekf.kr izfr dks fjdkWMZ ij ysus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k gS vkSj vkns'k esa vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr@;kfpdkdrkZ dh vksj ls ;g cgl dh xbZ Fkh fd

[2023:RJ-JD:30977] (8 of 8) [CRLMP-3340/2022]

nkSjkus cgl vfHk;qDr us U;kf;d n`"Vkar is'k fd;k Fkk fd fcuk izksijkbZVj'khi QeZ dk nLrkost is'k fd, psd vuknj.k dk eqdnek ugha py ldrkA ,slh fLFkfr esa gLrxr ekeys esa nLrkost dh izfr igys ls gh i=koyh ij Fkh vkSj ;g bLrxklk izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls /kkjk 138 ,u-vkbZ ,DV ds rgr izksijkbZVj'khi QeZ ds izksijkbZVj dh vksj ls is'k fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj bl ekeys esa ;kph dks 10]000@& :i;s dh dksLV ls daiulsV Hkh fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ekeys ds U;k;ksfpr fu.kZ; ds fy, nLrkost dks fjdkWMZ ij fy;s tkus ds vkns'k esa abuse of process of law gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk vkSj ends of justice ds fy, Hkh bl ekeys esa gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk fof/klEer izrhr ugha gksrkA 18- tgka rd fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph dh vksj ls izLrqr bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB ds Pramendra Kumar Jaluthariya Vs. Sumerchand Jaluthariya -okys ekeys dk iz'u gS] bl ekeys esa vf/koDrk dks psat djus ij u, vf/koDrk }kjk odkyrukek fn;k x;k vkSj bl vk/kkj ij vkns'k fn;k x;k Fkk fd ;kph us vf/koDrk psat fd;k gS] iwoZ ds vf/koDrk }kjk nLrkost is'k ugha fd;k x;k Fkk] ftldks bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB }kjk lgh ugha Bgjk;k vkSj /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dks fujLr fd;k x;k FkkA ;g U;kf;d n`"Vkar gLrxr ekeys esa ykxw ugha gksrkA gLrxr ekeys eas vf/koDrk psat djus ds vk/kkj ij vkosnu ugha fd;k x;k gS] cfYd bl ekeys esa cgl ds nkSjku QeZ ds izek.k&i= ij vkifRr djus ij i=koyh ij iwoZ ls ekStwn jftLVªs'ku izek.k&i= dh izfr dks iznf'kZr djokus dh vuqefr /kkjk 311 lhvkj-ih-lh- ds rgr nh xbZ gSA ,slh voLFkk esa fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ds vk/kkj ij v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k esa gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk fof/klEer izrhr ugha gksrkA vr% ;kph dh ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA 19- vr% ;kph ';ksdr vyh dh ;kfpdk vUrxZr /kkjk 482 lhvkj-ih-lh- [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA izkFkZuk&i= ;fn dksbZ yafcr gS rks og Hkh fuLrkfjr le>k tkosA (YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J Mayank/-