No Necessity to Examine Investigating Officer at Final Argument Stage: Allahabad HC Dismisses Application Under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

March 11, 2024

advocate judicial party RPF Advocates live Mother SARFAESI steel v Departmental properly Evidence Divorce Property Factual Bail FIR 376 Bail bail Child Allahabad High Cour 1989 Appointment Investigation Cheque Fear mother IIIT court Law application Acquittal 29A Marriage Maintenance Dowry Application dowryMarriage bail Land Earning Justice Written Statement Maintenance Summoning Rape Video Death Bail Guilty jurisdiction 138Assault investigation Temple bail Wife velectricity Child Drinking final murder Love Cheque Throwing Brick Husband NDPS Case allahabad addition preliminary evidence Cheque Bounce murder evidence grievances dowry 210 consideration order corporation advocate certificate marriage application mechanical maintenance financial evidence electricity wife probation bail individual investigation

Legal Point of Judgement: The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, clarified the limitations of exercising discretion under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The court emphasized that summoning a witness, such as the investigating officer in this case, at the final argument stage, is not essential for a just decision unless there is a compelling reason.

Facts and Issues: The case involved an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the trial court’s refusal to summon the investigating officer under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The incident dated back to 2006, with the trial starting after 2007. The application to summon the officer was filed at the final argument stage, which the trial court deemed an attempt to delay the trial.

Court’s Assessment:

Discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C.: Various Supreme Court decisions highlighted that while the court has discretion under Section 311, it should be exercised judiciously to avoid failure of justice, taking into account the potential hardship to witnesses and unnecessary trial delays.

Essential for Just Decision: The Court noted that the prosecution chose not to produce the investigating officer, and the accused also did not summon him as a defense witness. The Court found that the submission of the final report by the investigating officer was not a disputed fact that necessitated his examination.

Attempt to Delay Trial: The Court observed that the application lacked substantive reasoning as to why the officer’s examination was crucial for a just decision, perceiving it as an attempt to delay the trial.

Decision: The Allahabad High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., upholding the trial court’s decision. The Court concluded that there was no necessity to examine the investigating officer at this late stage of the trial, and there was no illegality in the order of the trial court.

Date of Decision: 6^th March 2024

Sanjeev Kumar And 3 Others v. State Of U.P.

Download Judgment