(2026:JHHC:18493) 1 Cr.M.P. No.1797 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 1797 of 2026 Zeenat Khatoon @ Zeenat Parween, aged about 48 years, wife of Md. Ajim Khan, resident of 5, Cross Ross Road No. 1, Azad Nagar, PO & PS – Azad Nagar, Town Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum. … … …Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … …Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P. ------ PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 06.12.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in G.R. Case No. 1179 of 2018 / MCA No. 8004 of 2025 arising out of Azad Nagar P.S. Case No. 38 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Jamshedpur, has rejected the petition dated 25.11.2025 filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking permission to adduce additional evidence by examining the I.O. of the case. 3. The brief fact of this case is that the petitioner is the informant of Azad Nagar P.S. Case No. 38 of 2018 involving the offences inter alia punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 307, 379, 504, 427 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (2026:JHHC:18493) 2 Cr.M.P. No.1797 of 2026 4. On 25.11.2025, the case was fixed to hearing of argument and on that day, the learned Addl. P.P. filed the presence of the I.O. of the case and prayed that he be examined as a prosecution witness. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class, Jamshedpur, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shailendra Vs. State reported in (2002) 1 SCC 655 and observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that witnesses cannot be recalled to fill-up the lacunae in prosecution case and went on to observe that in this case the I.O. is the material witness and though earlier twice the petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed, the prosecution is lingering the case instead of expediting the disposal of the case. Hence, rejected the prayer of the prosecution. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gaurav Maini vs. State of Haryana reported in (2024) 20 SCC 765, paragraph no. 49 of which reads as under:- “49. A conjoint reading of Section 311CrPC and Section 165 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that the trial court is under an obligation not to act as a mere spectator and should proactively participate in the trial proceedings, so as to ensure that neither any extraneous material is permitted to be brought on record nor any relevant fact is left out. It is the duty of the trial court to ensure that all such evidence which is essential for the just decision of the case is brought on record irrespective of the fact that the party concerned omits to do so.” (Emphasis supplied) and further submits that in that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has also relied upon the case of Pooja Pal v. Union of India reported in (2016) 3 SCC 135, in which case paragraph no. 57 of which reads as under:- “57. It was underlined in Zahira Habibulla case [Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 999] that if ultimately the truth is to be arrived at, the eyes and ears of justice have to be protected so that the interest of justice do not get incapacitated in the sense of making the proceedings before the courts, mere mock trials. While elucidating that a court ought to exercise its powers under Section 311 of the Code and (2026:JHHC:18493) 3 Cr.M.P. No.1797 of 2026 Section 165 of the Evidence Act judicially and with circumspection, it was held that such invocation ought to be only to subserve the cause of justice and the public interest by eliciting evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth. It was proclaimed that though justice is depicted to be blindfolded, it is only a veil not to see who the party before it is, while pronouncing judgment on the cause brought before it by enforcing the law and administer justice and not to ignore or turn the attention away from the truth of the cause or the lis before it, in disregard of its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice. That any indifference, inaction or lethargy displayed in protecting the right of an ordinary citizen, more particularly when a grievance is expressed against the mighty administration, would erode the public faith in the judicial system was underlined. It was highlighted that the courts exist to do justice to the persons who are affected and therefore they cannot afford to get swayed by the abstract technicalities and close their eyes to the factors which need to be positively probed and noticed. The following statement in Jennison v. Baker [Jennison v. Baker, (1972) 2 QB 52 : (1972) 2 WLR 429 : (1972) 1 All ER 997 (CA)] , was recalled : (QB p. 66) “… ‘The law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free, and those who seek its protection lose hope.’”” and submits that since the learned Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class, Jamshedpur, has in no uncertain manner, has herself observed that the I.O. of the case is a material witness of the case and when the I.O. was present in the case, it was the bounden duty of the court concerned to allow the prosecution to examine the I.O. as the witnesses of the case. Having not done so, the learned Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class, Jamshedpur, has committed grave illegality, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 7. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in passing the impugned order. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials on record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Zahira Habibulla Vs. State reported in (2006) 3 SCC 374, wherein the Hon’ble (2026:JHHC:18493) 4 Cr.M.P. No.1797 of 2026 Supreme Court of India has observed that Section 311 has two parts:- first part is discretionary whereas the second part, which mandates that the Court shall examine or recall and re-examine any person if an evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case, is mandatory. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is crystal clear from the impugned order itself that the learned Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class, Jamshedpur, has observed that the I.O. is the material witness of the case. Obviously, this goes to show that the examination of the I.O. of the case is essential for the just decision of the case. The undisputed fact remains that on 25.11.2025 when the petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was filed, the I.O. was present in the Court. 10. Under such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in refusing to examine the I.O. even though she herself has observed that the I.O. is the material witness of the case renders the order, not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside and the prayer under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. made by the petitioner in the petition dated 25.11.2025, is allowed. 11. The learned trial court is directed to fix a specific date for examination of the I.O. of the case, as a prosecution witness. It is needless to mention that if necessary, after examination and cross-examination of the I.O. of the case, the trial court may, if necessary, put additional questions to the accused person of the case under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and shall also give opportunity to the accused person to adduce further defence evidence; if he wishes. 12. This Cr. M.P. is allowed accordingly. (2026:JHHC:18493) 5 Cr.M.P. No.1797 of 2026 13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 23rd June, 2026 AFR/ Aditi Uploaded On -27/06/2026