Pawan Saini vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Pawan Saini, filed a petition seeking to quash an order dated 02.12.2024, which dismissed his application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for the examination of additional evidence. The petitioner, as the complainant, alleged that the accused provided misleading information in their statement recorded under Section 263(g) of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner sought to introduce additional documents, such as GST numbers/certificates, and examine his father as a witness to prove a sum of Rs. 9 Lacs was given. The application was filed when the case was fixed for final arguments, after the accused had disclosed their defense and the complainant had already been examined as CW-1. The trial court observed that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to point out alleged wrong information earlier and that introducing his father as a witness at this late stage was not permissible.

Held

The High Court held that the impugned order dated 02.12.2024, dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., was not illegal. The Court agreed with the trial court's reasoning that the application was moved at a belated stage, when the case was fixed for final arguments. The petitioner had sufficient opportunity to present the alleged additional evidence and examine his father as a witness earlier in the proceedings, especially after the plea of defense was recorded and before his own examination as CW-1. Allowing such a prayer at the final stage would prejudice the accused. The Court found no substance in the petitioner's submissions and upheld the trial court's decision. The ratio decidendi is that a party cannot be permitted to improve their case or introduce new evidence at the fag end of the proceedings, especially when they had ample opportunity to do so earlier, and such delay would cause prejudice to the opposing party.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as the complainant, has the locus to file an application for leading additional evidence after the defense has been disclosed by the accused, specifically concerning alleged misleading information regarding GST details and the examination of his father as a witness, under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the accused misled the court with incorrect information regarding GST details, necessitating the introduction of additional evidence (GST number/certificates) and the examination of his father to prove a financial transaction. He argued that Section 311 Cr.P.C. allows applications at any stage for arriving at a just decision. Respondent's arguments: The State of Haryana (respondent) argued that the application was moved at a very late stage, when the case was fixed for final arguments, without substantial grounds. They contended that the petitioner had ample opportunity to present this evidence earlier, particularly after the plea of defense was recorded and before his own cross-examination. Allowing the application would prejudice the accused.