Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Lajjo Devi vs State Of Haryana And Others on 4 October, 2010

Author: Sabina

Bench: Sabina

Crl. Misc. No. M-29285 of 2010 (O&M)                                      1


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                   Crl. Misc. No. M-29285 of 2010 (O&M)
                                         Date of Decision: October 4, 2010


Lajjo Devi                                                    ........Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Haryana and others                                ........Respondents

                               ******


CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present: Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate
         for the petitioner.


SABINA, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of the order dated 17.2.2010, passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jagadhari as well as the order dated 26.7.2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only one opportunity be allowed to the petitioner to enable him to examine the doctor and radiologist, who had medico legally examined the petitioner.

In the present case, admittedly, the complaint filed by the petitioner remained pending for 5 years i.e. w.e.f. 10.2.2005 till 9.1.2010 for pre-charge evidence of the petitioner. Since the petitioner had failed to conclude the pre-charge evidence in the said 5 years, the Court left was with no option but to close the evidence of the complainant. Crl. Misc. No. M-29285 of 2010 (O&M) 2

In these circumstances, at this stage, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to enable the petitioner to examine the doctor and the radiologist who had examined the petitioner.

No ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.



                                                   (SABINA)
October 4, 2010                                     JUDGE
Anand