( 2026:JHHC:18041 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No.1379 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1379 of 2025 Narendra Kumar Gutgutia, Aged about 54 years, Son of Late Binod Kumar Gutgutia, Resident of Ward No. 07, Kayasthapara, Near Board School, P.O. & P.S. –Jamtara, District –Jamtara (Jharkhand). .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. M/s Express Infratech Pvt. Ltd., its registered office at 209, AJC Bose Road, Karnani Estate, 3rd Floor, Room No. 109 A, Kolkata, P.O., P.S. & District –Kolkata, State –West Bengal. 3. Pankaj Kumar Das, Son of Mani Kant Das, the Director of Express Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Resident of -209, AJC Bose Road, Karnani Estate, 3rd Floor, Room No. 109 A, Kolkata, P.O., P.S. & District –Kolkata, State –West Bengal. 4. Sampada Ashiwariya, the Director of Express Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Resident of -209, AJC Bose Road, Karnani Estate, 3rd Floor, Room No. 109 A, Kolkata, P.O., P.S. & District –Kolkata, State –West Bengal. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate : For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. For O.P. Nos.2 to 4 : Mr. Nitin Kr. Pasari, Advocate ….. By the Court:- I.A. No.7658 of 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition. ( 2026:JHHC:18041 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No.1379 of 2025 3. Since, hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 1. 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 07.02.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamtara in M.C.A. No. 1598 of 2024 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Jamtara has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. as the same amounted to filling up lacunae. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the complainant of PCR Case No. 325 of 2021 involving the offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Though the case was fixed to argument on 01.07.2024 belatedly the petitioner filed the petition dated 09.12.2024 with the prayer that due to inadvertence the Consignment Tracking Report issued by the India Post through which apparently the demand notice was sent, Company Master Data & Director Details of Express Infratech Pvt. Limited and the Power of Attorney executed by Shilpi Gutgutia in favour of Narendra Kumar Gutgutia for ( 2026:JHHC:18041 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No.1379 of 2025 representing the firm be marked exhibits. The learned trial court considered that the complainant has already exhibited the Authorization Letter which has been marked Ext. C-7. During the submission of written argument where this document was challenged on various grounds, the complainant has come up with a new document of power of attorney which amounts to filling up the lacunae of the prosecution case to the detriment of the accused persons. It is next submitted that since in the written submission it has nowhere been disputed by the accused persons that the demand notice was issued by them and also the postal receipt of the demand notice has been marked exhibit. Hence the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. being filed with the sole purpose to fill up the lacunae in the case of the prosecution or to disadvantage the accused and by thus observing, the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Jamtara rejected the petition. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the power of attorney holder of M/s Shristi KSK Fuel Budhudih Jamtara through its proprietor Shilpi Gutgutia. It is next submitted that this is a case of extreme exception where this Court should exercise its inherent power to quash the impugned order. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. ( 2026:JHHC:18041 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No.1379 of 2025 5. The learned Spl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 4 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer. The learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Govind Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand, reported in MANU/JH/0621/2024, submits that in that case this Court relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raja Ram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & Another., reported in (2013) 14 SCC 461, para -17 of which reads as under:- “17. From a conspectus consideration of the above decisions, while dealing with an application under Section 311 CrPC read along with Section 138 of the Evidence Act, we feel the following principles will have to be borne in mind by the courts: 17.1. Whether the court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the court for a just decision of a case? 17.2. The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 CrPC should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive and speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated. 17.3. If evidence of any witness appears to the court to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the power of the court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person. 17.4. The exercise of power under Section 311 CrPC should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts, which will lead to a just and correct decision of the case. 17.5. The exercise of the said power cannot be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case, unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it apparent that the exercise of power by the court would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice. 17.6. The wide discretionary power should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. ( 2026:JHHC:18041 ) 5 Cr.M.P. No.1379 of 2025 17.7. The court must satisfy itself that it was in every respect essential to examine such a witness or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case. 17.8. The object of Section 311 CrPC simultaneously imposes a duty on the court to determine the truth and to render a just decision. 17.9. The court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is necessary, not because it would be impossible to pronounce the judgment without it, but because there would be a failure of justice without such evidence being considered. 17.10. Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense should be the safeguard, while exercising the discretion. The court should bear in mind that no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. 17.11. The court should be conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners and the court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. In that parity of reasoning, it would be safe to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost of the accused. The court should bear in mind that improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary power, may lead to undesirable results. 17.12. The additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of the party. 17.13. The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that is likely to be tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and also ensure that an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party. 17.14. The power under Section 311 CrPC must therefore, be invoked by the court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. The court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right.” It is next submitted that since the accused person of the case do not dispute of the receipt of the demand notice, so the ( 2026:JHHC:18041 ) 6 Cr.M.P. No.1379 of 2025 consignment tracking report of apparently the demand notice sent to the accused person, is irrelevant and since the petitioner was prosecuting the case on the basis of the authorization letter, only because the same was challenged on various legal grounds, at the fag end of the trial, the petitioner cannot make out a new case by executing a fresh power of attorney to reopen the entire case to the detriment of the opposite parties –accused persons of the case. It is lastly submitted that the learned trial court having rightly rejected the petitioner filed under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that there is no material in the record to show that the consignment tracking report issued by the India Post is in respect of which document but from the discussions made in the impugned order, it is apparent that the same was the consignment tracking report of the demand notice issued. Since it has specifically been mentioned that the accused persons of the case is not disputing receipt of the demand notice, so this Court do not find any illegality in the observation made by the learned trial court that the consignment tracking report of the demand notice was redundant. So far as the attempt to introduce a new power of attorney which was not even the case ( 2026:JHHC:18041 ) 7 Cr.M.P. No.1379 of 2025 of the complainant since the beginning of the case, at the fag end of the trial was obviously made, only with the purpose to fill up the lacunae of the case of the prosecution, hence the same in the considered opinion of this court, has rightly been dismissed. 7. Therefore, this Court do not find any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. 8. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without of any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 18th June, 2026 AFR/Sonu- Uploaded on 29.06.2026