Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

No Witness Can Be Overlooked if Essential for Just Decision: High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order to Summon

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the decision of the trial court to summon Harjeet Singh as a witness in a case involving allegations of forgery and cheating under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner, Naseem Ahmed, faced trial for allegedly duping Rashpal Kaur by failing to secure a medical college seat for her daughter despite receiving payment.

The primary legal point in question was the application of Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) which empowers the court to summon any person as a witness if their testimony appears essential for a just decision of the case.

The prosecution moved an application under Section 311 CrPC to summon Harjeet Singh, husband of the deceased complainant Rashpal Kaur, contending his testimony was crucial for a just decision. The petitioner opposed this, arguing that Harjeet Singh's statement was not recorded under Section 161 CrPC during the investigation and that summoning him was an attempt to fill in prosecution lacunas.

Justice Deepak Gupta, assessing the arguments and relying on various Supreme Court precedents, emphasized the broad discretion of the court under Section 311 CrPC. The court noted, "The 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 court further observed that the right of the accused to a fair trial under Article 21 is safeguarded by the opportunity to cross-examine any new witnesses.

The High Court found no illegality or fault in the trial court's order and dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. The court underscored that Harjeet Singh's testimony was essential for the just decision of the case, and the petitioner's right to cross-examination would negate any potential prejudice.

DATE OF DECISION: 22.02.2024

Naseem Ahmed vs. State of Punjab

Latest Legal News

  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 2:33 PM
Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 2:33 PM
ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 2:33 PM
State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 2:33 PM
Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 2:33 PM
'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 2:33 PM
Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna