High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/11886/2023disposed of

Nusrat v. State Of Punjab

2023-03-13Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-11886-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.03.2023 NUSRAT ....Petitioner

Versus

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :

Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARSH BUNGER, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of the order dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in case FIR No.110 dated 17.06.2020 registered under Sections 307, 506, 341, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Jodhewal, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1); vide which an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C filed by the complainant has been allowed. 2.

The petitioner herein is an accused in the aforesaid case FIR No.110 dated 17.06.2020 (Annexure P-1).

During the course of the trial in the abovesaid case, the complainant had filed an application (Annexure P-2) under Section 311 Cr.P.C to examine the witnesses i.e. Sunil Kumar and Karandeep Singh as prosecution witnesses. In the application, the following averments were made:-

! "

%&% '

(

)

The above-said application under Section 311 Cr.P.C was contested by the petitioner herein by filing its reply, wherein, it was inter alia objected that the application was not maintainable and the same had been filed only to fill up the lacuna in the case. The remaining averments in the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C were controverted and denied by the petitioner herein.

After, considering the rival submissions of the parties, the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide its order dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure P-4) allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

Being dis-satisfied with the above-said order dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court. 7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Court below has erred in law and fact in allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C, as Sunil Kumar and Karandeep Singh have no link with the case and the said application under Section 311 Cr.P.C was filed just to fill up the lacuna in the case. It is submitted that the said Sunil Kumar and

-- Karandeep Singh were never joined in the investigation nor their statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C before the Police. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure P-4) be set aside and the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C filed by the complainant be dismissed.

I have heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the paperbook.

As regards the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the persons sought to be examined by filing application under Section 311 Cr.P.C, namely Sunil Kumar and Karandeep Singh have no concern with the case as they were neither joined in the investigation nor their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C were recorded. I do not see any merit in the said contention inasmuch as that the learned trial Court has recorded a finding that the names of both these persons namely Sunil Kumar and Karandeep Singh are specifically mentioned at Serial No.2 and 4 of the list of witnesses. It is further observed by the trial Court that Karandeep Singh is shown to be the eye-witness and witness of memo and similarly Sunil Kumar is also shown to be the witness of memo regarding handing over of CD. The learned trial Court has held as under:- +

! "

*! "

%&% ,.,

%&% ,., #

0 1 /

'%%,., # /

3$$'4 10.

A perusal of the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned trial Court would manifest that although the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C of witnesses namely Sunil Kumar and Karandeep Singh are not there on the record, however, the Court has found that these witnesses can throw proper light on the incident and the said persons have been considered to be relevant being eye-witnesses of the incident. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not demonstrated as to what prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner if the said persons, who are sighted as eyewitness in the list of witnesses, are permitted to be examined. It is not a case where the witness has already been examined and cross-examined and is being sought to be recalled to fill up the lacuna. The trial Court has found the examination of these persons as essential.

11.

It is well settled law that it is the duty of the Court to arrive at the truth and subserve the ends of justice. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme court in case of

-- Iddar & others v. Aabida& another, 2007 (3)R.C.R. (Criminal) 909, wherein it was held as follows :- +5

/ " '%% , 6 7'%% .

(

, /

7 %$

77 77

(

, (

,69: 9:

, 9: 2/

, ;

, /

-- ,

;

; %%

" '%%,

;

/ ,

(

, )

(

4 13.

In view of the abovesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 14.

All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. 13.03.2023 (HARSH BUNGER) Amandeep JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No