Patna High Court
Ajay SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court dismissed the Section 311 application, upheld the earlier order, and permitted substitution of the petitioner with his legal heir.
Summary
The petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 4 July 2018 seeking to file additional documents to rebut documentary evidence produced by the accused. The trial court had rejected this application on 20 February 2023, a decision the petitioner challenged, arguing the documents were necessary for a fair adjudication. The accused opposed, contending the application was an attempt to delay the case, which had already been scheduled for arguments. The High Court observed that Section 311 is not intended to fill gaps in the evidence at a late stage and allowing it would lead to endless rebuttal filings, thereby hindering speedy disposal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitioner's Section 311 application, upholding the earlier order, while also allowing the substitution of the deceased petitioner with his legal heir, Ajay Singh, under a separate interlocutory application.
Issues considered
- Whether an application under Section 311 CrPC filed in 2018 can be allowed at a later stage to file additional documents to rebut defence evidence.
- Whether the order rejecting the Section 311 application dated 20‑02‑2023 can be set aside.
- Whether the substitution of the deceased petitioner with his legal heir is permissible.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 311
Subjects
- Section 311
- Criminal Procedure Code
- documentary evidence
- substitution of parties
- speedy trial
- procedural delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39723 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-774 Year-2012 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Ajay Singh Son of Late Kameshwar Singh Resident of Village - Singarpur,
P.S.- Suryagarha, District - Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Most. Tarni Devi @ Saloni Devi Wife of Late Darwari Singh Resident of
Village - Singarpur, P.S.- Suryagarha, District - Lakhisarai.
3. Arjun Singh Son of Late Bocha Singh Resident of Village - Singarpur, P.S.-
Suryagarha, District - Lakhisarai.
4. Triloki Singh Son of Late Bocha Singh Resident of Village - Singarpur, P.S.-
Suryagarha, District - Lakhisarai.
5. Sheo Shankar Singh Son of Late Bocha Singh Resident of Village -
Singarpur, P.S.- Suryagarha, District - Lakhisarai.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Vinay Pd. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP
For the O.P. No.2 to 5 : Mr. Parmanand Pd. Nr. Sahi, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
5 06-02-2026 Re: I.A. No.01 of 2025
At the outset, it is pointed out that the I.A. No.01 of
2025 has been filed in order to substitute the sole petitioner with
his legal heirs as the sole petitioner, Kameshwar Singh, died on
01.01.2025.
2. For the reasons stated in this application, this
application is allowed.
3. Let the sole petitioner, Kameshwar Singh, be
substituted with his legal heir, namely Ajay Singh.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39723 of 2023(5) dt.06-02-2026
2/4
Re: Cr. Misc. No.39723 of 2023
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite parties
no.2 to 5.
5. The present application has been filed challenging
the order dated 20.02.2023, whereby and whereunder the
petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 311 of
Cr.P.C. dated 04.07.2018 for the purposes of filing some
documents has been rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
earlier a Land Possession Certificate and other documents had
been filed on behalf of the accused which was marked as
Exhibit-2. He has made a prayer before the concerned Court to
allow the petitioner (complainant) to rebut the documentary
evidence filed on behalf of the accused persons by way of filing
other documents to be marked as exhibits. It has further been
submitted that such documents would be necessary for proper
adjudication of the case and marking of the same would be in
the interest of justice as the prosecution would lead evidence in
support of the same.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
opposite parties no.2 to 5, however, strongly opposed the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39723 of 2023(5) dt.06-02-2026
3/4
statements made on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that
the present application has been filed to linger the speedy
disposal of the case as the case has already been fixed for
arguments. It has also been pointed out that the said application
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is of the year 2018 and already
sufficient time has lapsed, as such, there would be no point in
allowing the application of the prosecution under Section 311 of
the Cr.P.C.
8. After hearing the rival contentions of both sides,
this Court finds that the petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
has been filed in this case on 04.07.2018 and the case had
reached the stage of arguments in the year 2023 itself and till
date, the trial has been stalled, as the petitioner had filed the
present application in which proceedings had been directed to
remain stayed. It would be apparent from the impugned order
dated 20.02.2023, that when the documents were being filed on
behalf of the accused persons, no objection to the same was
raised on behalf of the petitioner (complainant) and rather the
document produced by the defence, which was marked as Exhibit-2,
was public document which was marked without any objection. It is
only as an afterthought and for the purposes of rebutting the said
document that the petitioner has prayed for filing some
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39723 of 2023(5) dt.06-02-2026
4/4
documents at his end and as such, has moved an application
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.. The scope of Section 311 of
Cr.P.C. is well settled that the same is not to be permitted for
filling up lacunae in the case. Moreover, if Section 311 of
Cr.P.C. application are allowed for the purposes of rebutting
documentary evidence, it would become a never ending process
as the defence may also feel the necessity of rebutting the
documents produced by the prosecution, as such, the case would
never reach its logical conclusion.
9. In such view of the matter, considering the law
settled with regard to the provisions under Section 311 of
Cr.P.C. and also considering the fact that the impugned order
dated 20.02.2023 is a perfectly reasoned order without any
illegality featuring in the same, this Court finds no sufficient
reason to interfere with the said order, accordingly, the present
application stands dismissed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…