Section 311 Cr.P.C. Application Rejected After Pre-Charge Evidence Closed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Additional Evidence Cannot Be Allowed to Fill Lacunae or Delay Trial

Case Name: Prem Kumar v. Hanish Kumar

Date of Judgment: 13 May 2026

Bench: Justice Manisha Batra

Citation: CRM-M-25990-2019

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the discretionary power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) cannot be invoked to fill up lacunae in a case or to give an unfair advantage to one party. The Court ruled that this power must be exercised with great caution and only for strong, valid reasons when it is necessary for a just decision.

The Court further held that simply withdrawing a revision petition before the Sessions Court with permission to approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not give a litigant the right to challenge a trial court’s procedural order, unless there is a clear and obvious illegality.

Summary: The petitioner (complainant), Prem Kumar, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. asking the High Court to set aside an order dated December 1, 2017, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa. The trial court had dismissed the petitioner’s application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to bring in additional evidence during the pre-charge stage of a criminal complaint.

The original complaint was filed in 2014, alleging that the respondent (accused) had used a forged affidavit from December 2005 to change municipal records and illegally register a property under his name. During the pre-charge evidence stage, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon and prove a subsequent property transfer deed dated August 1, 2012, through which the respondent had transferred the property to his wife and sons.

The trial court rejected the application because the petitioner had already obtained a certified copy of this 2012 transfer deed back in July 2015 but made no attempt to introduce it until after his pre-charge evidence was closed. The trial court also noted that the 2012 deed was not directly related to the main issue of the 2005 forgery and that the application was filed just to delay the trial. The petitioner challenged this order in the Sessions Court but later withdrew that revision petition to file the current petition before the High Court.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the trial court took a hyper-technical approach and that the 2012 deed was important to show how the forged municipal records were used. The respondent argued that the trial court’s order was perfectly valid and well-reasoned.

The High Court agreed with the trial court and found no illegality or abuse of power. The Court noted that the central issue in the complaint was the forgery of the 2005 affidavit, making the 2012 transfer deed a secondary matter. Because the petitioner sat on the document since 2015 and waited until the evidence stage was closed to bring it up, the High Court held that Section 311 Cr.P.C. could not be used to fix negligent delays or fill gaps in the complainant’s evidence.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the criminal petition and upheld the trial court’s order. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to use Section 311 Cr.P.C. to introduce a document he had held for years right after his pre-charge evidence was closed. The Court concluded that the proposed evidence would not impact the core issue of the 2005 forgery and that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to override a trial court’s proper procedural discretion.