Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21259 (JHR)

Radhiya Devi @ Radhia Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2026-02-10

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Criminal Revision No.42 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Godda dismissed the criminal revision directed against the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda in P.C.R. Case No.357 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda did not allow the petitioner to prove vital documents in support of her case and rejected the petition filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. keeping in view the fact that the case was already fixed for argument. 3. The brief fact of the case is that on 18.09.2019, the petitioner who is the complainant of the case, filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. with the prayer to adduce evidence to prove the mutual amicable partition deed, the genealogy of Rakhiya Devi, the decision of the village Panch and the original copy of the family settlement. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda considered that since the case is fixed for argument, there is no justification for the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. at that stage and in the interest of justice rejected the same. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.42 of 2019 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Godda and the learned Sessions Judge, Godda was of the view that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the petition of the complaint under section 311 of Cr.P.C. and dismissed the criminal revision. 5. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.42 of 2019 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Godda and the learned Sessions Judge, Godda was of the view that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the petition of the complaint under section 311 of Cr.P.C. and dismissed the criminal revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents such as the amicable family partition, the genealogy of Rakhiya Devi, the decision of the village Panch and the original copy of the family settlement are vital documents which are required to be brought in evidence for just and proper decision of the case, hence, the trial court ought to have allowed the same, but having not done so, it has committed illegality and the learned Sessions Judge, Godda also committed illegality by ignoring this illegality committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda, hence, it is lastly submitted that the prayer as prayed for, in this Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 to 4 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submit that the petition having been filed at the belated stage, that is at the stage of final hearing of the arguments, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda has rightly rejected the same and there being no illegality in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda, the learned Sessions Judge, Godda has also rightly rejected the criminal revision. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the 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 Habibullah Sheikh & Another vs. State of Gujarat & Others reported in 2006 3 SCC 374 that Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has two parts, the first part is discretionary whereas the second part is mandatory and because of the mandatory nature of the second part, it compels the court to take any steps provided in Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. if the new evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. 8. The bare perusal of the Section 311 of Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that such power can be exercised by the Court at any stage of trial, so, merely because the case was fixed for hearing of arguments that will not make the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. not maintainable. Once an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is filed in any court expressing the intention of any of the parties to adduce any particular evidence, it is incumbent upon the court concerned to verify whether the evidence sought to be introduced is essential to the just decision of the case and once the evidence is essential for the just decision of the case, the Court is bound to take steps in Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for production of such evidence. 9. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, though, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. dated 18.09.2019 mentioning therein the four specific documents, the copies of which were filed with list of documents; sought to be adduced for the just decision of the case, but in the impugned order dated 18.09.2019 passed in P.C.R. Case No.357 of 2013, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda failed to consider whether the evidence sought to be introduced, was essential for the just decision of the case, on the other hand, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda has refused introduction of the evidence at the stage of hearing of arguments by observing that there is no justification for filing any application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. at the stage of hearing of argument. 10. As already indicated above, since, the legislature in its wisdom has allowed introduction of evidence at any stage, certainly, the observation of the learned Magistrate to reject the petition filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that at the stage of hearing of argument, there is no justification for filing such application without examining and verifying whether the evidence sought to be adduced is essential for the just decision of the case is not sustainable in law. 11. Further the learned Sessions Judge, Godda has failed to consider this laches on the part of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda and instead of setting right the order impugned before it, the learned Sessions Judge, Godda has concurred with the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda and dismissed the criminal revision erroneously. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court both the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Criminal Revision No.42 of 2019 and the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda in P.C.R. Case No.357 of 2013 are not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same are quashed and set aside. 12. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court both the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Criminal Revision No.42 of 2019 and the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda in P.C.R. Case No.357 of 2013 are not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same are quashed and set aside. 12. The case is remitted to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st Class, Godda to form an opinion whether the evidence sought to be introduced by the petitioner is essential for just decision of the case and in case, the same is essential for just decision of the case, then the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda must give opportunity to the petitioner to prove the same by examining witnesses, but in case, the same appears to be not essential for the just decision of the case by a reason, the petition may be rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda. 13. It is made clear that since the opinion is to be formed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda, this Court has not expressed any opinion as to whether the documents sought to be introduced by the petitioner are essential for the just decision of the case or not and the same is left open for the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Godda. 14. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. is disposed of. 15. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted vide order dated 10.09.2020, is vacated.