Ashish Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

RESERVED ON 23.5.2024 DELIVERED ON 12.8.2024 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4030 of 2024 Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jag Prasad Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gyanendra Singh,Manish Singh Chauhan Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

1.The petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing orders dated 27.2.2024, passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.08, Lucknow (Annexures 2 and 3) in Complaint Case No.43423 of 2020 Mahendra Pratap Singh versus Ashish Kumar Maurya. By first order dated 27.2.2024, application for taking affidavit on record has been allowed with a cost of Rs.300/-. By other other order of the same date, The application under section 311 CrPC moved by the complainant has been allowed and the P.W.2 Rananjay Singh has been recalled, also on the cost of Rs.300/-.

2.Heard Mr. Jag Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Mr. Manish Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3.Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint case was field by the complainant/respondent No.2 under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act on 21.10.2020 alleging that the complainant gave Rs.4,50,000/- to the accused for doing business, on 18.6.2019. On 16.3.2020, the accused gave cheque No.225733 dated 14.9.2020 drawn at Canara Bank, Branch Ram Nagar, Barabanki from his account number. The cheque was deposited in the account of the complainant at Union Bank of India, Clork Awadh Branch, Lucknow on

16.9.2020. The cheque was dishonoured on

18.9.2020 for insufficient balance. A notice dated

23.9.2020 was sent through Registered Post to the accused which was received by him on

25.9.2020. Still, the amount was not paid by him. Thus, complaint was filed.

4.Statement under Section 251 CrPC was recorded by the trial court. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and cross-examined. Statement under Section 313 CrPC of the accused was recorded on

20.8.2022 by the Court below. Thereafter, examination of D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.3 was concluded. After arguments were partly heard and complainant filed his written arguments, the complainant/ respondent No.2 filed two applications on 6.1.2024, one was for taking affidavit on record and the other for recalling P.W.2 Rananjay Singh. Objections to these applications were filed by the petitioner on

3.2.2024. Applications were heard and vide impugned orders dated 27.2.2024, both the applications were allowed. The trial Court while allowing the first application for taking affidavit given by the complainant has passed the following order : "ददिननाሪक-27-02-2024 आदिदेश पनररननप्ቔ बनबत ललिए जननदे शपरप्ቔ प्ቔनवलिली पर ददिननाሪदकत 06-01-2024 पसनवलिली आदिदेश हदेततु पदेश। पनररननप्ቔ ददिननाሪदकत 06-01-2024 साሪलि्ሿ शपरप्ቔ मम उदቤኌलखित, तथ्यय, कनरणय एवाሪ पररससरदतयय कको दृदቖኌगत रखितदे हहए साሪलि्ሿ शपरप्ቔ कको प्ቔनवलिली पर ललिए जननम हदेततु ददियन गयन हहै। साሪलि्ሿ शपरप्ቔ मम मतुख्य रूप सदे यह करन दकयन गयन हहै दक पररवनदिली दनरन दवपकली ककी मनाሪग पर दवपकली कको अपनदे लिखिनऊ ससरत आवनस पर रू० 4,50,000/- व्यवसनय करनदे हदेततु ददियन रन। उपरको्ሹ रूपए शपरली नदे दवपकली कको अपनदे बनग व ककदषि ककी वषिर 2018-2019 सदे पन्቎ हहए धन मम सदे ददियन रन। शपरली ककी पहैतक साሪपलቈኌ मम आम ककी बनग जको लिगभग 40 बलीघदे कदे हहै एवाሪ ककदषि यकोग्य भभूदम गनम-मकोहनरली, परगनन-फतदेहपतुर तहसलीलि रनमनगर लजलिन-बनरनबाሪककी मम ससरत हहै। खिततौनली ककी सत्यनदणन पदतयनाሪ साሪलि्ሿक साሪख्यन-01 व 02 कदे रूप मम साሪलि्ሿ हहै। अदभयतु्ሹ ककी तरफ सदे आपलቈኌ प्ቔ साሪलि्ሿ शपरप्ቔ मम वदणरत तथ्यय , कनरणय एवाሪ पररससरदतयय कदे आधनर पर पररवनदिली कदे पनररननप्ቔ कको असवलीकनर करनदे हदेततु ददियन गयन हहै। साሪलि्ሿ शपरप्ቔ मम अदभयतु्ሹ ककी तरफ सदे मतुख्य रूप सदे वदणरत दकयन गयन हहै दक पनररननप्ቔ एवाሪ शपरप्ቔ ककी अाሪतरवसततु बलिपभूवरक इाሪकनर हहै, गलित, झभूठ तरन दमथ्यन हहै। सनቌኚय, पररवनदि मम उदቤኌलखित तथ्यय कदे साሪबाሪध मम पसततुत कदेयन जन सकतन हहै, जको शपरप्ቔ पररवनदिली दिदेनन चनहत हहै. उसकदे साሪबाሪध मम पररवनदि मम तथ्य उदቤኌलखित नहीሻ हहै। पनररनन प्ቔ असवलीकनर दकए जननदे यकोग्य हहै। उभय पक कदे दवदनन अलधव्ሹनगण ककी बहस सतुनली जन चतुककी हहै। प्ቔनवलिली कन सम्यक रूप सदे अवलिकोकन दकयन। पररवनदिली पसततुत मनमलिदे मम अदभयतु्ሹ कको ददिए गए रु० 4,50,000/- उधनर कदे साሪबाሪध मम, आय कदे सकोत कदे साሪबाሪध मम शपरप्ቔ मय साሪलि्ሿक खिततौनली पसततुत करनन चनहतन हहै। आय कदे सकोत कदे साሪबाሪध मम अदभयतु्ሹ दनरन धनरन-251 दिाሪ०प०साሪ० कदे पयनन कदे सतर पर ककोई पश्न नहीሻ उठनयन गयन। पररवनदिली ककी गवनहली कदे सतर पर लजरह मम भली आय कदे सकोत कदे साሪबाሪध मम ककोई पश्न नहीሻ उठनयन गयन। बहस कदे सतर पर दितौरनन बहस आय कदे सकोत कदे साሪबाሪध मम पश्न उठनतदे हहए तकर पसततुत दकयन गयन हहै, लजसकदे बनदि पररवनदिली दनरन यह शपरप्ቔ मय खिततौनली पसततुत दकयन जन रहन हहै, जको आय कदे सकोत कदे साሪबाሪध मम हहै। आय कदे सकोत कदे साሪबाሪध मम पश्नगत शपरप्ቔ व खिततौनली प्ቔनवलिली मम लिदेकर अाሪदतम दनणरय करनदे मम मदिदि दमलिदेगली। उ्ሹ शपरप्ቔ मय खिततौनली कको प्ቔनवलिली पर * ललियन जननन दवलधसाሪगत एवाሪ न्यनयकोदचत हहै। जहनाሪ तक दवलिाሪब कन सवनलि हहै, इस साሪबाሪध मम समतुदचत हजनर लिगनयन जन सकतन हहै। पनररननप्ቔ उदचत हजर पर सवलीकनर दकए जननदे यकोग्य हहै। पनररननप्ቔ रू० 300/- हजर पर सवलीकनर दकयन जनतन हहै। शपरप्ቔ सबखिततौनली प्ቔनवलिली मम ललियन जनए। हजनर ददिननाሪक दनयत तक अदिन हको । While passing the order, above extracted, the trial Court has noticed that regarding the source of income of the complainant, the accused petitioner has not raised any objection at the stage of evidence under section 251 CrPC. At the stage of cross examination of the complainant also, source of income was not disputed by the accused. During the course of argument, this question was raised for the first time by him. Thereafter, the complainant has filed application along with Khatauni to show his source of income. The trial Court has allowed the application on these grounds with a further reasoning that it will help in final disposal of the matter.

5.Likewise, on the same date, i.e. on 27.2.2024, another application filed by the complainant for recalling witness P.W. 2 Rananjay Singh has also been allowed on cost of Rs.300/-. It has been stated in the application that in the affidavit of Rananjay Singh, due to typographical error, date of giving cheque to the accused has wrongly been mentioned and reliance has been placed by the complainant on a judgment dated 30.7.2008 passed by Supreme Court in Godrej Pacific Tech. Limited versus Computer Joint India Limited Criminal Appeal No.1181 of 2008. The Court held that for just disposal of the case, recalling P.W.2 appears to be necessary and thus has allowed the application filed by the complainant. The order dated 27.2.2024 is extracted below : " ददिननाሪक-27-02-2024 आदि केश‌पाथरनापतቔ ‌अन् तगरत‌धारा-311oदि ०नሪ प०सनሪ०‌वासतके‌ररकहॉ लि ‌करनके‌पमी ०डब् लि ०-02o रणनሪजय‌िसनሪह‌वदि नानሪवकत‌06-01-2024 पररवादि मी ‌दारा‌पाथरनापतቔ ‌सनሪलि गሿ क‌शपथपतቔ ‌मे‌ववणरत‌तथ् यल‌कारणल‌एवनሪ‌पररिसथवतयल‌कको दृ वषኌ गत‌रखि तके‌हहए‌पमी ०डब् लि ०-02oरणनሪजय‌िसनሪह‌कको ‌बयान‌कके ‌िलि ए‌पतुनतः ‌बलितु ाए‌जानके‌का‌ आदि केश‌पाररत‌करनके‌हकेततु‌वदि या‌गया‌ह।है ‌सनሪलि गሿ क‌शपथपतक्?ार‌मे‌मतुख् य‌रू प‌सके‌आधार‌ ववणरत‌वकया‌गया‌ह‌है वक‌पमी ०डब् लि ०-02oरणनሪजय‌िसनሪह‌दारा‌शपथपतቔ ‌साकኚ य‌मे‌दि ािखि लि ‌ वकया‌गया‌हहै,oिजसमे‌टाइवपसट‌ककी ‌एक् लि मी ‌सके‌अवभयकሹतु ‌कके ‌दारा‌पररवादि मी ‌कको ‌चके ‌दि केनके‌ ककी ‌वासतववक‌वतिथ‌16-03-2020oकके ‌सथान‌पर‌तቔ तुवटवश‌चके ‌दि केनके‌ककी ‌वतिथ‌टाइप‌करतके समय‌पररवादि ‌पतቔ ‌कके ‌पहैरा-02oमे‌उवलኌ िखि त‌वतिथ‌18-06-2019oकको ‌गलि तमी ‌सके‌चके ‌दि केनके‌ ककी ‌तारमी खि ‌(16-03-2020)oिलि खि नके‌कके ‌सथान‌पर‌वदि नानሪक‌18-06-2019oिलि खि ‌वदि या।‌ उपरको कሹ ‌भलूि ‌कमा‌यको ग् य‌ह‌है तथा‌पररवादि ‌ककी ‌कको ई‌कममी ‌ककी ‌पलूवतर‌करनके‌जहैसा‌नहळሻ ‌ह।है अवभयकሹतु ‌ककी ‌तरफ‌सके‌आपितኌ ‌पतቔ ‌मय‌शपथपतቔ ‌दि ािखि लि ‌वकया‌गया‌ह‌है तथा‌मतुख् य‌रू प‌ सके‌शपथपतቔ ‌मे‌कथन‌वकया‌गया‌ह।है ‌वक‌पाथरनापतቔ ‌एटट‌शपथपतቔ ‌ककी ‌अनሪतरवसततु‌बलि पलूवरक इकनሪ ार‌ह.है oगलि त‌झठलू ‌तथा‌वमथ् या‌ह।है ‌पररवादि ‌पतቔ ‌असवमी कार‌वकए‌जानके‌यको ग् य‌कहा‌गया‌ ह।है अभय‌पक‌कके ‌ववदान‌अिधवकሹ ागण‌ककी ‌बहस‌सतुनमी ‌जा‌चतुककी ‌ह।है ‌पतቔ ावलि मी ‌का‌सम् यक‌रू प सके‌अवलि को कन‌वकया। पररवादि मी ‌दारा‌पमी ०डब् लि ०-02oरणनሪजय‌िसनሪह‌कको ‌पतुनतः ‌साकኚ य‌मे‌कको ‌जानके‌हतके तु‌गथनापतቔ ेवदि या‌गया‌ह।है ‌पमी ०डब् लि ०-02oरणनሪजय‌िसनሪह‌कके ‌शपथपतቔ ‌साकኚ य‌म‌टाइवपसट‌ककी ‌गलि तमी ‌कके कारण‌चके ‌दि केनके‌ककी ‌वतिथ‌गलि त‌टाइप‌वकया‌जाना‌कहा‌गया‌ह।है ‌पररवादि मी ‌ककी ‌तरफ‌सके गको दि रजके , oपहैसमी वफक‌िलि वमटकेड‌बनाम‌कनሪ प् यलूटर‌ज् वाइटनሪ ‌इिणडया‌िलि वमटकेड‌वकኌ ०‌अपमी लि सनሪख् या-1181/2008oवनणरኍ त‌वदि नानሪवकत‌30-07-2008oमा०‌उच् चतम‌न् यायालि य‌व‌सतुवमतቔ ा दि केवमी ‌बनाम‌कपलूर‌चन् दቖ ‌मा०‌उच् च‌न् यायालि य‌वहमाचलि ‌पदि केश,o2023oलि हॉ ‌सलूट‌(एच०पमी ०) 223oवनणरय‌वविध‌दि ािखि लि ‌ककी ‌गई।‌उकሹ ‌वनणरय‌वविधयल‌मे‌धारा -311oदि ०नሪ प०सनሪ०‌कके सनሪबनሪध‌मे‌जको ‌िसदानሪत‌पवतपावदि त‌वकया‌गया‌हहै , oउसकके ‌पकाश‌मे‌पसततु ‌भामलि के‌कके न् यायसनሪगत‌वदि वनश् चय‌कके ‌िलि ए‌पमी ०डब् लि ०-02oरणनሪजय‌िसनሪह‌कको ‌पतुनतः ‌परमी का‌हकेततु‌बतुलि ाए जानके‌हकेततु‌आवश् यक‌पतमी त‌हको ता‌ह।है ‌पमी ०डब् लि ०-02oरु णनሪजय‌िसनሪह‌कको ‌पतुनतः ‌परमी का‌हतके तु र रबतुलि ाया‌जाना‌वविधसनሪगत‌एवनሪ‌पयारप ‌आधार‌ह।है ‌पाथनापतቔ ‌उवचत‌हज‌पर‌सवमी कार‌हको नके यको ग् य‌ह।है ‌पाथरनापतቔ ‌रू ०‌300oह?जर‌पर‌सवमी कार‌वकया‌जाता‌ह।है ‌पमी ०डब् लि ०-02oरणनሪजय िसनሪह‌कको ‌पतुनतः ‌परमी का‌हतके तु‌ररकालि ‌वकया‌जाता‌ह।है ‌पमी ०डब् लि ० -02oरणनሪजय‌िसनሪह‌ककी ‌पतुनतः परमी का‌मे‌शपथपतቔ ‌साकኚ य‌पसततु ‌वकया‌जाए।‌पतቔ ावलि मी ‌वासतके‌पतुनतः ‌परमी का‌शपथपतቔ साकኚ य‌पर‌वदि नानሪक‌13-03-2024oकको ‌पकेश‌हको ।‌हजार‌वदि नानሪक‌वनयत‌तक‌अदि ा‌हको ।‌‌"

6.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has failed to consider the fact that the evidence of respondent No.2 is closed way back and the complainant has not explained the reason for moving the application under Section 311 CrPC at belated stage. In this context, learned counsel has relied on Swapan Kumar Chatterjee versus Central Bureau of Investigation Criminal appeal No.15 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Cri) No.7748 of 2017) (relevant paras 12 and 13).

7.A perusal of provisions of Section 311 CrPC shows that the Court has power under Section 311 CrPC to recall and re-examine any person already examined if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. Since there was a typographical error in the affidavit of Rananjay Singh regarding date of providing the cheque to the accused, on this reason, the learned court was competent enough to recall P.W.2 Rananjay Singh for his re-examination under the Code of Criminal Procedure to arrive at a just decision. In the case of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee (supra), law has been reiterated that in the interest of justice and to meet the ends of justice, power conferred under section 311 CrPC should be invoked by the Court. In the case in hand, learned trial Court has given adequate reasons while relying on judgment of Supreme Court in Godrej Pacific Tech. Limited (supra).

8.Likewise, as regards other application, the complainant has been permitted to take on record the affidavit along with Khatauni filed by the complainant for the reason that for the first time, during arguments, the accused raised this objection that the complainant is not having any source of income. He did not raise any objection at the stage of statement under section 251 CrPC or at the stage of evidence of the complainant regarding his source of income. Since he raised it for the first time during the course of argument, therefore, for this reason, this application has also been allowed. Both the applications have been allowed on the cost of Rs.300/-. The learned trial court has relied on the case of Godrej Pacific Tech. Limited (supra). Supreme Court in the said case while introducing section 311 CrPC has held in paras 6, 7, 8 and 9 as under : "6. In this context, reference may be made to Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code which reads as follows: "311. Power to summon material witness, 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."

¶7The section is manifestly in two parts. Whereas the word used in the first part is "may", the second part uses "shall". In consequence, the first part gives purely discretionary authority to a criminal court and enables it at any stage of an enquiry, trial or proceeding under the Code (a) to summon anyone as a witness, or (b) to examine any person present in the court, or (c) to recall and re-examine any person whose evidence has already been recorded. On the other hand, the second part is mandatory and compels the court to take any of the aforementioned steps if the new evidence appears to it essential to the just decision of the case. This is a supplementary provision enabling, and in certain circumstances imposing on the court the duty of examining a material witness who would not be otherwise brought before it. It is couched in the widest possible terms and calls for no limitation, either with regard to the stage at which the powers of the court should be exercised, or with regard to the manner in which it should be exercised. It is not only the prerogative but also the plain duty of a court to examine such of those witnesses as it considers absolutely necessary for doing justice between the State and the subject. There is a duty cast upon the court to arrive at the truth by all lawful means and one of such means is the examination of witnesses of its own accord when for certain obvious reasons either party is not prepared to call witnesses who are known to be in a position to speak important relevant facts.

¶8The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the 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 section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the court to summon a witness under the section merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused. The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and empowers the Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings, trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant expression that occurs is "at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code". It is, however, to be borne in mind that whereas the section confers a very wide power on the court on summoning witnesses, the discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously, as the wider the power the greater is the necessity for application of judicial mind.

¶9As indicated above, the section is wholly discretionary. The second part of it imposes upon the Magistrate an obligation: it is, that the court shall summon and examine all persons whose evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. It is a cardinal rule in the law of evidence that the best available evidence should be brought before the court. Sections 60, 64 and 91 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act") are based on this rule. The court is not empowered under the provisions of the Code to compel either the prosecution or the defence to examine any particular witness or witnesses on their side. This must be left to the parties. But in weighing the evidence, the court can take note of the fact that the best available evidence has not been given, and can draw an adverse inference. The court will often have to depend on intercepted allegations made by the parties, or on inconclusive inference from facts elicited in the evidence. In such cases, the court has to act under the second part of the section. Sometimes the examination of witnesses as directed by the court may result in what is thought to be "filling of loopholes". That is purely a subsidiary factor and cannot be taken into account. Whether the new evidence is essential or not must of course depend on the facts of each case, and has to be determined by the Presiding Judge." Supreme Court has held that the first part of the section is discretionary. Second part of section 311 CrPC imposes upon the Magistrate an obligation and cast a duty upon the Court to recall and re-examine any person whose evidence has already been recorded and whose evidence appears to be essential for arriving a just decision in the case. Law is settled in this regard. The best evidence available should be brought before the Court. It has been held that the Court will often have to depend on intercepted allegations made by the parties, or on inconclusive inference from facts elicited in the evidence. In such cases, the court has to act under the second part of the section which is mandatory.

9.Considering the argument advanced, perusal of the record, reasons assigned in the impugned orders as also the judgment(s) referred to above, I find no illegality in the orders impugned. The petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Order Date :- 12.8.2024 kkb/ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench