ORDER : The petitioner, who is an accused in C.P. Case No. 860 of 2000, is aggrieved of the order dated 12.04.2017 by which his application under section 311 Cr.P.C has been declined. 2. Briefly stated, in the complaint-petition filed by the complainant-respondent no. 2 which has been registered as C.P. Case No. 860 of 2000 initially the Magistrate declined to take cognizance of the offence and the complaint was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C by an order dated 01.03.2001. This order was challenged by the complainant in Criminal Revision No. 42 of 2001 which was allowed by order dated 27.09.2001. Against this order the petitioner came to this court in Cr. M. P. No. 5014 of 2001, however, without success. Thereafter, cognizance of the offence was taken by the Magistrate on 14.11.2002. The order taking cognizance was challenged by the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 229 of 2002 which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad by an order dated 20.03.2003. The petitioner came to this Court in Cr. M. P. No. 386 of 2003 challenging the revisional order, however, again without success. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) which was converted into Cr. Appeal No. 1153 of 2004, however, by an order dated 22.10.2010 it was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The petitioner thereafter filed petition for discharge which was dismissed on 05.02.2014, against which the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 176 of 2014. The criminal revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 28.07.2015. The petitioner again approaches the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8864 of 2015 which was dismissed on 27.10.2015. Thereafter, charges for the offence under section 323, 341 and 506 IPC and under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were framed. During the trial, three witnesses were examined by the complainant; the complainant has examined himself as C.W. 1. The prosecution evidence was closed on 03.12.2016 and statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C on 08.12.2016. Thereafter, several documents were filed by the defence and the defence evidence was closed on 20.03.2017. During the trial, three witnesses were examined by the complainant; the complainant has examined himself as C.W. 1. The prosecution evidence was closed on 03.12.2016 and statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C on 08.12.2016. Thereafter, several documents were filed by the defence and the defence evidence was closed on 20.03.2017. The matter was posted for argument on 25.03.2017, when the petitioner has filed an application under section 311 Cr.P.C for marking; (i) letter dated 24.04.2000 written by complainant to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, (ii) letter dated 25.02.2000 issued by the Harijan Cell to Mr. D. B. Raman, and (iii) letter dated 05.05.2000 written by D.B. Raman in response to letter dated 25.04.2000. The petitioner also prays for marking of the report which was called for by the Magistrate during the enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. For proving these documents, through the application under section 311 Cr.P.C the petitioner seeks summoning of the Additional District Magistrate-cum-In-charge Harijan Cell or any other competent person to produce complete records and mark the aforesaid documents. 3. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that delay alone cannot be a ground to decline an application under section 311 Cr.P.C; it must be held that the application under section 311 Cr.P.C is a device to fill-up lacuna in the case which would cause such prejudice to the other party which may result in mis-carriage of justice. 4. Stand taken by the complainant is that after the complainant and other witnesses were cross-examined and discharged the aforesaid documents have no relevance and, at this stage the accused cannot be permitted to lead further evidence. 5. The opening line of section 311 Cr.P.C; any court may at any stage of any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, reflects the legislative intendment under section 311 Cr.P.C. It is evident from a bare reading of section 311 Cr.P.C that delay alone cannot be a ground for refusing an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, the learned counsel for respondent no. Kalyan Banerjee, the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the accused who has filed several documents which were marked as exhibit-A to A/6, however, at any stage before the case was fixed for argument the accused did not take step for marking of the aforesaid documents and if the application under section 311 Cr.P.C is allowed at this stage, it would cause serious prejudice to the complainant. The chequered history of this case would indicate that the petitioner cannot take a plea that it was his negligence or his counsel's negligence due to which the aforesaid documents could not be marked during the trial of C.P. Case No. 860 of 2000. However, the learned trial Magistrate while refusing the application under section 311 Cr.P.C has observed that the complainant was cross-examined at length and the defence was afforded ample opportunity and therefore the petitions/notices which were filed before institution of the case have no relevance for proper adjudication of the case. 6. In my opinion, the learned trial Judge has pre-judged the issue. What would be the relevance of the evidence led by the defence is a matter for final arguments and at this stage when the application under section 311 Cr.P.C has been filed for proving and marking certain documents, merits of the matter cannot be adjudicated by the Magistrate. In the complaint-petition, the complainant has asserted that he has given a complaint to the Harijan Cell on which a notice was issued to the accused (para-7). A perusal of the complaint-petition would disclose that copies of the complaint and the notice were annexed along with the petition. In his reply to the application under section 311 Cr.P.C, the complainant does not say that the documents mentioned in the application under section 311 Cr.P.C are not on record. The documents which are already on record and which according to the petitioner may assist the Court for arriving at a just conclusion should have been marked before the defence evidence was closed, however, not marked due to illness of the conducting counsel and other factors as explained in the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. In “Natasha Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation (State)” reported in (2013) 5 SCC 741 [:2013(3) JLJR (SC) 397], the Supreme Court has held as under : 16. “Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure, and it is the duty of the court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society, and therefore, fair trial includes the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the person concerned, and the same must be ensured as this is a constitutional, as well as a human right. Thus, under no circumstances can a person's right to fair trial be jeopardised. Adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right. Denial of such right would amount to the denial of a fair trial. Thus, it is essential that the rules of procedure that have been designed to ensure justice are scrupulously followed, and the court must be zealous in ensuring that there is no breach of the same.” 7. Viewed thus and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, finding serious infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.04.2017 passed in C.P. Case No. 860 of 2000, it is quashed. However, in view of the proceeding which has ensued after filing of C.P. Case No. 860 of 2000 due to which the complainant has been dragged into protracted litigation, the petitioner must be saddled with cost. Accordingly, the petitioner shall pay Rs. 25,000/-to the complainant-respondent no. 2 within two weeks as compensation and litigation cost. 8. W.P.(Cr.) No. 167 of 2017 is allowed. 9. I.A. No. 379 of 2019 stands disposed of. 10. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX.