Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajan Mittal And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 16 October, 2015
Author: Shekher Dhawan
Bench: Shekher Dhawan
CRM-M No.4145 of 2015 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 4145 of 2015
Date of decision: - 16.10.2015
Rajan Mittal and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN
Present: Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Varun Sharma, A.A.G., Punjab
for the State.
****
SHEKHER DHAWAN, J.
Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 28.10.2014 (Annexure P-4) in case FIR No.55 dated 19.12.2011 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Women Cell, Patiala whereby an application filed by the petitioners was dismissed by learned magistrate, Patiala.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that charge was framed in this case on 04.05.2013 and thereafter case was posted for PWs on 22.05.2013, 19.07.2013, 05.08.2013, 26.08.2013, 25.09.2013, 28.10.2013, 26.11.2013, 17.01.2014, 11.02.2014, 28.02.2014 and 14.03.2014 and all these dates there was no prosecution witness present in the Court and case was adjourned without any effective proceedings. NARESH KUMAR 2015.10.20 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M No.4145 of 2015 -2- However, on adjourned date i.e. 10.04.2014, two prosecution witnesses were present and their examination-in-chief was recorded and thereafter cross-examination was treated to be 'Nil', as defence counsel was not present.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these two witnesses are material witnesses and there was no intention of accused or defence counsel to unnecessarily seek adjournment because in fact accused was a victim of prolonged litigation. So, they be allowed to cross-examine these two witnesses.
4. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Gurdev Singh, submits that the case is still at prosecution witnesses stage.
5. In view of above, present petition is accepted and direction given to the trial Court to allow to cross-examine these two prosecution witnesses by learned defence counsel, who were examined on 10.04.2014. However, it is made clear that only one effective opportunity shall be given for the purpose and for that purpose prosecution witnesses shall be summoned again.
6. In view of above directions, the present petition stands disposed of.
October 16, 2015 (SHEKHER DHAWAN)
naresh.k Judge
NARESH KUMAR
2015.10.20 11:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh