K.S. Garewal, J.

1. A brief background of the litigation is necessary in order to determine if the respondents have committed contempt of court.

2. On January 20, 2002, Amit Kumar Jains father Bimal Kumar Jain was injured in a motor accident. FIR 26 was registered under Section 279 IPC against Rupinder Singh. Bimal Kumar Jain died on January 30, 2001 and Section 304-A IPC was added. At the trial against Rupinder Singh, prosecution evidence was closed by order on August 10, 2007.

3. However, Amit Kumar Jain presented an application under Section 311 to place on record certain documents. This application was declined on August 24, 2007. Amit Kumar Jain filed Crl. Misc. No. 46713 M of 2007 to challenge the order closing the prosecution evidence passed on August 10 and the order dismissing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. dated August 24, 2007 was also attached. This petition was dismissed by the Honble Single Judge on October 1, 2008. The matter went to the Honble Supreme Court in SLP 8363 of 2008 which was dismissed on December 12, 2008.

4. Thereafter, the trial proceeded to the stage of examination of defence witnesses, as the trial had not been stayed, court was only restrained from passing the final order. Gautam Khanna, record clerk, Sessions court, Patiala, was examined as DW-1 on August 24, 2007. On November 17, 2008, Amit Kumar Jain filed an application for recalling Gautam Khanna (DW-1). This application had also been filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The earlier application had been filed for placing additional documents on record. The second application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was declined on February 25, 2009. Crl. Misc. 6013 M of 2009 was filed on March 2, 2009 to challenge the order. This application was disposed of on March 5, 2009.

5. At this stage, counsel for the accused Shri Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, filed Crl. Misc. 15868 M of 2009. He submitted that Amit Kumar Jain had obtained a favourable order on March 5, 2009 by concealing the dismissal of his earlier application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. This was a fraud on the court. The application of the accused was allowed on March 27, 2009 by the Honble Single Judge holding that arguments raised by the accused were prima-facie correct. Thereupon notices were issued under the Contempt of Courts Act against Amit Kumar Jain and his counsel Shri Padam Kumar Jain (respondent 2).

6. While it is true that the complainant had filed two applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C., yet the relief in the first application was for placing documents on record, while relief in the second application was for recalling a defence witness. Both reliefs were different, therefore, it is difficult to accept that the order passed on March 5, 2009 was obtained by fraud. A party in a criminal case can file many application under the provision of Section 311 Cr.P.C., claiming different reliefs each time. If in a later application, the details of the earlier applications are not mentioned, it would not amount to fraud because the cause of action and the reliefs sought were entirely different. It is similar to a party in a civil suit filing a number of applications under Section 151 C.P.C., each application being for different reliefs. Affidavit of Shri Padam Kumar Jain, Advocate, has also been placed on record and has been perused.

7. We find that two different applications had been filed at two different stages of the trial for different reliefs, therefore, if the contents of the first application had been concealed, no contempt of court is made out, particularly when the cause of action and the reliefs sought in both the application was different. Resultantly, the rule is discharged.