JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the order in Crl.MP.No.18105 of 2023 in C.C.No.3608 of 2022 dated 21.7.2023 passed by the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai set aside the same.) 1. This criminal original petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Court below dismissing the application filed by the prosecution in Crl.MP.No.18105 of 2023 in C.C.No.3608 of 2022 by an order dated 21.7.2023, wherein the prosecution wanted to bring in three documents and one material object. 2. The petitioner gave a complaint to the 1st respondent and based on the same, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.230 of 2020. On completion of investigation, the final report was filed before the Court below and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.3608 of 2022. 3. The case was at the stage of trial and the complainant was examined as PW.1. Immediately thereafter, the present application came to be filed by the prosecution under Section 242(2) r/w Section 311 Cr.PC. This application was filed to bring in the following documents/materials object: 4. The Court below dismissed the application filed by the prosecution mainly on the ground that the prosecution is attempting to bring in a new case and that if at all these documents are attempted to be introduced, the prosecution must first get permission for conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.PC and without doing so, the new materials cannot be brought in. 5. As against the dismissal of the application filed by the prosecution, the prosecution did not bother to challenge the same. Hence, the de facto complainant, who is the affected party has filed the present petition before this Court. Even though, the locus standi of the petitioner was questioned, after the amendment brought in through Act 5 of 2009, the victim has now been given right to participate in the proceedings. Hence, the petition filed by the de facto complainant cannot be thrown away just because the prosecution did not challenge the order passed by the Court below. The petition must be construed as if the de facto complainant was projecting the case of the prosecution before this Court. 6. In the considered view of this Court, the Court below has dismissed the application on assumptions and surmises. The petition must be construed as if the de facto complainant was projecting the case of the prosecution before this Court. 6. In the considered view of this Court, the Court below has dismissed the application on assumptions and surmises. The trial in this case has just begun and PW.1 has been examined. Immediately thereafter the present application has been filed. The Court below is assuming that the prosecution is attempting to improve the case and for the purpose of bringing in the new materials, there is no statement recorded from PW.1 under Section 161 Cr.PC. The Court below has also wrongly understood that new materials can be brought in only by seeking for permission to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.PC. 7. This Court had an occasion to deal with the scope of Section 311 Cr.PC in K.Ravichandran v. The Inspector of Police, Thanjavur reported in 2018 (2) LW Crl.944. This Court held that the power under Section 311 Cr.PC can be exercised at any stage and to meet the ends of justice. A witness not shown in the list of witnesses can be examined as a witness and the materials not filed along with the final report can also be brought in, subject to the condition that the accused person must be put on notice and sufficient opportunity is given to the accused person to defend himself regarding the new witnesses/fresh materials sought to be relied upon. The question of further investigation will come only if there are certain events which were not investigated and which was not within the knowledge of the investigation officer or there are some subsequent events which had taken place which requires further investigation. In the instant case, the materials that are sought to be brought in by the prosecution is only to strengthen the evidence of PW.1. Hence, when these materials are brought in, the accused person will be given sufficient opportunity to cross examine PW.1 through whom these fresh materials are sought to be marked. 8. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the Court below in Crl.MP.No.18105 of 2023, dated 21.7.2023 is hereby set aside and the application filed by the State in Crl.MP.No.18105 of 2023, is hereby allowed. 9. In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed in the above terms.