← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/2291/2015disposed of

Ranjit Singh v. State Of Punjab And ANR.

2015-02-05Mr. Justice S.C. Malte3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 5, 2015 Ranjit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

Present:

Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is for quashing the order dated 31.7.2014 (Annexure P-8), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar/Trial Court, whereby an application moved by the petitioner/complainant under Section 311, Cr.P.C., was dismissed.

Notice of motion.

At the asking of the Court, Mr. K.S. Pannu, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who is present in the Court,

accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. Ms. Ishma Randhawa, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2, Joga Singh. They are ready to advance arguments today itself.

During course of arguments, learned counsel for the parties have agreed that one opportunity be afforded to the petitioner/complainant to lead additional evidence with regard to the order dated 29.8.1988, which is emerging at page No. 34 of the paper book of the present petition. They have further agreed that only one effective opportunity shall be afforded to the petitioner/complainant to lead his evidence in this regard and that under the garb of this order, he (petitioner/complainant) shall not be permitted to lead any other evidence. In view of above, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner/complainant, Ranjit Singh, shall be afforded one effective opportunity by learned Trial Court, enabling him to lead additional evidence with regard to the order dated 29.8.1988, which is emerging at page No. 34 of the paper book of the present petition and thereafter learned Trial Court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law. In view of the fact that the occurrence in the present

case is of the year 1991; one of the accused has already died; and that respondent No. 2/accused is behind the bars for the last more than seven years, it is expected that learned Trial Court would conclude the trial at the earliest.

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE February 5, 2015 Pkapoor