The Delhi High Court clarified that while invoking the powers under Section 311 CrPC, the recall or summoning of additional evidence at a belated stage cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process and delay in trial. It held that such discretionary power is to be exercised only when the evidence sought to be adduced is essential for the just decision of the case and not to fill lacunae or delay proceedings.
Briefly, the Court was dealing with a petition seeking the quashing of an order passed by the trial court dismissing an application under Section 311 CrPC for summoning records of another complaint case at the stage of final arguments in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner contended that the records were necessary to establish admissions allegedly made by the complainant in connected proceedings.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. [(2011) 8 SCC 136], State (NCT of Delhi Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav [(2016) 2 SCC 402] and Ratanlal Vs. Prahlad Jat [(2017) 9 SCC 340], to reiterate that recall of witnesses or summoning of additional material is not automatic and cannot be permitted merely on the ground of ensuring a “fair trial”, unless the necessity for such evidence is clearly demonstrated.
The Single Judge noted that the trial had been pending since 2017, the defence evidence stage had commenced as early as 2019, and the petitioner had ample opportunity to summon the record earlier. Thus, the belated application was found to be unexplained and indicative of an attempt to delay the adjudication of the complaint.
Concluding that there was no perversity or arbitrariness in the trial court’s reasoning, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 311 CrPC cannot be misused to derail proceedings or cause prejudice to the complainant.
Appearances:
Advocate Atul Sahi, for the Petitioner
Advocates Yudhvir Singh Chauhan and Raghav Sharma, for the Respondent
