Satyajot Singh v. U.T Chandigarh And Another

​1​ ​IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT​ ​CHANDIGARH​ ​148​ ​Date of Decision:19.01.2026​ ​Satyajot Singh​ ​....Petitioner​ ​Versus​ ​U.T. Chandigarh and another​ ​.....Respondents​ ​CORAM:​ ​HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY​ ​****​ ​Present:​ ​Mr. P. S. Guliani, Advocate,​ ​for the petitioner.​ ​Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Addl. Public Prosecutor with​ ​Mr. Navnit Sharma, Advocate,​ ​for respondent No.1.​ ​Mr. H.P. Guatam, Advocate,​ ​for respondent No2.​ ​****​ ​AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)​ ​1.​ ​The​​present​​petition​​has​​been​​filed​​under​​Section​​482​​CrPC​​for​ ​quashing​​the​​order​​dated​​19.11.2019,​​Annexure​​P-1,​​passed​​by​​learned​​Chief​ ​Judicial​ ​Magistrate,​ ​Chandigarh,​ ​whereby,​ ​on​ ​an​ ​application​ ​filed​ ​by​ ​respondent​​No.

2​​under​​Section​​173(8)​​CrPC​​for​​further​​investigation,​​the​​trial​ ​Court​ ​has​ ​allowed​ ​one​ ​Nitin​ ​Sharma​ ​to​ ​be​ ​examined​ ​in​ ​evidence​ ​under​ ​Section 311 CrPC.​ ​2.​ ​This Court on 03.08.

​2​ ​summoned​ ​as​ ​an​ ​additional​ ​witness​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​311​ ​Cr.P.C.,​ ​since​ ​his​ ​name​ ​was​ ​given​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​filing​ ​charge-sheet,​​whether​​the​​said​​eye​​witness​​is​​known​​to​​him​ ​(respondent​ ​No.2)​ ​and​ ​what​ ​is​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​filing​ ​the​ ​application​​after​​a​​lapse​​of​​1​​and​​a​​half​​year​​as​​to​​how​​did​ ​he​​come​​to​​know​​that​​said​​Nitin​​Sharma​​was​​present​​at​​the​ ​scene​ ​of​ ​occurrence​ ​and​ ​as​ ​to​ ​why​ ​would​ ​he​ ​not​ ​join​ ​investigation​ ​when​ ​the​ ​same​ ​was​ ​carried​ ​out​ ​after​ ​registered​ ​of​ ​FIR,​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​seeks​ ​time​ ​to​ ​file​ ​affidavit.​ ​Learned​​counsel​​for​​the​​U.T.

,​​to​​also​​file​​a​​report​​as​​to​​why​ ​aforesaid​​witness​​was​​not​​associated​​in​​the​​investigation​​in​ ​case​ ​he​ ​was​ ​an​ ​eye​ ​witness​ ​as​ ​is​ ​claimed​ ​by​ ​respondent​ ​No.2.​ ​Post it on 06.09.2023.​ ​Interim order to continue."​ ​3.​ ​Learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​respondent​ ​No.2​ ​has​ ​not​ ​been​ ​able​ ​to​ ​respond to the aforesaid query.​ ​4.​ ​As​ ​has​ ​been​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​pillion​ ​rider-Madan​ ​Lal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deceased,​ ​one-Gunjit​ ​Bir​ ​Singh​ ​eye-witness​ ​and​ ​Pawan​ ​Kumar​ ​Singla,​ ​Executive​ ​Engineer,​ ​Punjab​ ​Water​ ​Works​ ​Department,​ ​who​ ​also​ ​were​ ​allegedly​ ​hit​ ​by​ ​the​ ​vehicle​ ​of​ ​the​ ​petitioner​ ​and​ ​were​ ​thus​ ​eye​ ​witnesses,​ ​though identified the vehicle in question, but not him.​ ​5.

​ ​After​​completion​​of​​the​​evidence,​​an​​application​​came​​to​​be​​filed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​complainant​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​173(8)​ ​Cr.P.C​ ​and​ ​not​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Public​ ​Prosecutor,​ ​for​ ​further​ ​investigation​ ​that​ ​one​ ​alleged​ ​eye-witness​ ​Nitin​ ​Sharma​​was​​not​​joined​​in​​the​​investigation,​​thus,​​the​​same​​was​​not​​complete.

​3​ ​However,​​the​​trial​​Court​​instead​​of​​determining​​whether​​the​​prayer​​for​​further​ ​investigation​​was​​warranted,​​has​​fallen​​in​​grave​​error​​by​​summoning​​the​​said​ ​witness under Section 311 CrPC, a course that prompts this Court to interfere.​ ​6.​ ​In​ ​view​ ​of​ ​the​ ​aforesaid​ ​discussion,​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​19.11.2019​ ​passed​​by​​learned​​Chief​​Judicial​​Magistrate,​​Chandigarh​​is​​set​​aside,​​leaving​ ​it​​open​​to​​the​​trial​​Court​​to​​decide​​the​​application​​filed​​by​​the​​complainant​​on​ ​its own merits.​ ​(​AMAN CHAUDHARY​)​ ​JUDGE​ ​January 19, 2026​ ​dinesh​ ​Whether speaking​ ​:​ ​Yes/No​ ​Whether reportable​ ​:​ ​Yes/No​