ORAL JUDGMENT :- Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. The matter is up for final hearing with consent. 2. The applicants, who are original accused Nos. 1 and 2 in R.T.C. No. 1996, under sections 109 and 494 of Indian Penal Code pending before J.M.F.C. Shrigonda, have filed this application invoking section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash and set aside the order passed by learned J.M.F.C. on application of the complainant, who is respondent No.2 before this Court, for calling certain witnesses under section 311, Criminal Procedure Code. 3. According to the applicants, the case was pending before J.M.F.C. since against as many as 15 accused persons. It is contended that the Complainant/respondent No.2 had completed and closed her evidence and filed is to that effect on 18-12-2003. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for fixed arguments. However, suddenly on 26-8-2004 respondent No.2 filed application 157 seeking permission to examine 9 more witnesses and direction for issues of summonses to some of them. The application was opposed by the accused persons including the present applicants. However, after hearing both the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order on Exh.157 on 9-9- 2004 allowing that application. According to the applicants, the said order is contrary to the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscious. No s are given in the application, how the evidence of the above said witnesses necessary for the just decision nor any such reason was given in the impugned . It is contended that the learned Magistrate failed to take note that the evidence was closed by the complainant long back on or about 18-12-2003. It is contended that the learned trial Court did not apply the case law properly. On grounds, the applicants sought the said order to be quashed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application 157, impugned order thereon as well as Roznama of the case before the Magistrate. At the outset, it may be stated that though, the date of the impugned order is shown to be 9-9-2004 in the present application, in fact the order appears to have been passed on 7-9-2004. Mr. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application 157, impugned order thereon as well as Roznama of the case before the Magistrate. At the outset, it may be stated that though, the date of the impugned order is shown to be 9-9-2004 in the present application, in fact the order appears to have been passed on 7-9-2004. Mr. Shirsath, learned 1 vehemently contended that in view of the facts stated above, respondent complainant could not be allowed to produce any more evidence as it amounted to enable the prosecution to fill up lacuna in the case and in support of this he placed reliance upon R. N. Kakkar vs. Hanif Gafoor Naviwala and 1996(2) ALL MR 466. Mr. Nagarkar, learned counsel for respondent No. reliance upon several authorities, in support of his contention that this was attempt just to plug the loopholes in the prosecution evidence or to fill but it was necessary in the interest of justice and such power under sect could be exercised by the learned Magistrate at any stage. Mr. Nagarkar, contended that if the record is carefully seen the complainant had never the evidence at the stage of trial and she had also given sufficient reason application Exh.157 seeking permission to examine 9 more witnesses. 5. Before considering the legal position on the subject, it will be to state the facts correctly. 6. The complaint was filed in 1996 and process was issued against accused persons. Roznama reveals that on most of the dates, the accused were not present before the Court. On number of occasions it became necessary to issue warrants against them but the warrants were got cancelled. On the occasions only some of the accused used to remain present and most accused used to be absent and exemption was sought for their attendance. Evidence of the complainant herself before framing of completed on 11-9-2003. Thereafter, matter was adjourned to 9-10-2003 chance for further evidence. On 13-11-2003 she again sought short adjournment for hearing and on 18-12-2003 she filed a purshis Exh.129-A close evidence before Charge. Thereafter, arguments were heard and on 22charge was framed against accused persons. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for evidence after framing of charge and she sought issuance of summons which granted on 19-3-2004. Thereafter, matter was adjourned on some because summonses were not issued to the witnesses. Thereafter, arguments were heard and on 22charge was framed against accused persons. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for evidence after framing of charge and she sought issuance of summons which granted on 19-3-2004. Thereafter, matter was adjourned on some because summonses were not issued to the witnesses. At the cost of it may be stated that during that period also on most of the occasions, the persons had sought exemption from personal appearance. On 16-7-2004, persons filed application Exh.153 seeking direction that evidence of com be closed. Matter was adjourned to 29-7-2004 and then to 26-8-2004. 0 2004, she filed application Exh.157 (which was originally given Exh.89 a on all the exhibit numbers of the record appear to have been corrected application was fixed for arguments on 7-9-2004, the application was and order was passed to issue summons to the witnesses. Matter was adjourned for further hearing on 6-10-2004. On that day accused persons were absent the complainant filed an application to issue warrants against them. At the time an application Exh.159 was filed by the accused seeking stay proceeding because they wanted to challenge the order on Exh.157. In this, the matter was adjourned to 7-12-2004. Before going to the contents application, it may be noted that on 14-10-2004 on behalf applicants/accused it was represented to this Court that the matter before Magistrate was posted on 19-10-2004 for arguments and therefore, absolutely necessary to grant some interim relief of stay. Accordingly, . relief of stay was granted by order dated 14-10-2004. In fact, the record that the matter was not posted on 19-10-2004 before the learned Magistrate is clear that the applicants had misrepresented before this Court on 14-1 for the purpose of obtaining interim relief of stay. 7. According to the applicants, no valid reasons were given either in or in the impugned order for invoking powers under section 311 of, procedure Code. The application Exh.157 clearly shows that out of the , who were originally cited in the complaint, two witnesses, had some dispute the complainant and they were not inclined to speak the truth and expired during pendency of the case. Therefore, those three witnesses be examined. It was stated that out of the witnesses originally cited witness Sulochana could be examined during the trial. Therefore, those three witnesses be examined. It was stated that out of the witnesses originally cited witness Sulochana could be examined during the trial. It was further stated that during pendency of the matter the complainant had come to know that proposed witnesses were important witnesses to prove the offence and, it was necessary to examine them. She sought summonses for three of witnesses, while she could produce remaining six witnesses on her own. In para of the impugned order after referring to some case law, the learned magistrate observed that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it necessary to allow the application and to give opportunity to the complainant/ evidence. It is true that he did not repeat all the facts and circumstances, are quoted in the application but it is clear that he allowed the application, of the facts and circumstances quoted in the application. 8.From the facts stated above, it is clear that after framing of charge, the e of the complainant is not yet opened and by this application Exh.157. She sought permission to examine 9 witnesses which were not originally cited in plaint. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that allowing the complainant to examine these witnesses during the trial would amount to filling up lacuna or plugging certain loopholes in the prosecution evidence. Therefore, he authority in the case of R. N. Kakkar (supra) is not applicable to the present 9. Section 311, Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows: "311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. _ Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined." It does not put any limit or restriction about stage at which a witness may be summoned or may be allowed to be examined by the Court. It empowers the to issue summons at any stage of enquiry or trial if evidence of such is witness necessary for fair trial and just decision. In P. Chhaganlal Daga vs. M. Shaw, (2003) 11 SCC 486, in a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable arguments Act, the complainant had completed his evidence including his nation, cross-examination and re-examination. It empowers the to issue summons at any stage of enquiry or trial if evidence of such is witness necessary for fair trial and just decision. In P. Chhaganlal Daga vs. M. Shaw, (2003) 11 SCC 486, in a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable arguments Act, the complainant had completed his evidence including his nation, cross-examination and re-examination. During cross-examination caused had denied service of statutory notice and had disowned the signature acknowledgment. After completion of evidence, case was posted for respondent. At that stage, the complainant sought permission to produce additional material, that in postal receipt, to prove the service of the statutory notice. The Court granted the permission, which was set aside by the High Court. The me Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering in the order of al Court. After referring to authority in Rajendra Prasad vs. Narcotic Cell, ( 1999) 6 SCC 110, the Supreme Court observed as follows in para 6 of t judgment. “6. In deciding so, this Court has taken into account some of the decisions of this Court including Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. U India. In the said decision this Court had observed that the receive evidence in exercise of section 311 of the Code exercised "even if evidence on both sides is closed" and such jurisdiction of the Court is dictated by the exigency of the situation and fair play. only factor which should govern the Court in exercise of powers section 311 should be whether such material is essential for decision of the case. Even a reading of section 311 of the Cod show that Parliament has studded the said provision lavishly word "any" at different places. This would also indicate the wide of power conferred on the Court in that matter. It is so stated Court in Ram Chander vs. State of Haryana." In Sama Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2002 CriLl. 31 Rajasthan High Court held that an application for summoning material can be filed at any stage before pronouncement of judgment and power section 311 can be exercised even during final arguments of the case. It is so stated Court in Ram Chander vs. State of Haryana." In Sama Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2002 CriLl. 31 Rajasthan High Court held that an application for summoning material can be filed at any stage before pronouncement of judgment and power section 311 can be exercised even during final arguments of the case. Sukhdev Waghmare vs. State of Maharashtra, 2004(1) BCR (Cri.) learned Single Judge of this Court held that section 311 of the Procedure Code empowers the Court to issue summons to witness at any trial if the evidence of such witness is essential to just decision of the learned Judge observed in para 6 as follows: "However, after taking into consideration the provisions of se of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is clear that it is not restricte issuing the summons to examine the witness who is cited as a was the prosecution, but summons can also be issued by the witness whose evidence is essential for the just decision of the if the said witness is not cited as witness by the prosecution." In view of the provisions of section 311 and the above-referred authority abundantly clear that section 311 empowers the Court to issue summa witness whose evidence is found essential for the just decision of the c if such witness is not cited by the prosecution originally and this powers exercised at any state of the enquiry or trial till before the judgment is pronounced. 10. In view of the facts and legal position discussed above, it is the impugned order was rightly passed by the J.M.F.C., and no fault can in the same. In fact, the applicants, who are the original accused Nos. made certain wrong statements of facts before this Court when they al the complainant had already closed evidence on 18-12-2003, while i that date evidence before framing of charge only was closed and framed long after that and after framing of charge evidence was recorded. Thus, it is clear that the applicants unnecessarily dragged the complainant respondent No.2 to the High Court by filing the present a and put her to unnecessary expenditure. Therefore, I find that the app liable to be dismissed with costs.