IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-28733 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 07, 2008 Balwinder Kaur … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND Present : Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** S.D. Anand, J. Crl.Misc. No. 50446 of 2008 Allowed, as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-28733 of 2008 The petitioner / complainant – Balwinder Kaur filed a plea under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for being allowed to examine two witnesses (Balwinder Singh and Mukhtiar Singh) who are material witnesses but who could not be examined earlier “due to Crl. Misc. No.M-28733 of 2008 reason they were restrained by the accused due to their influence.” The learned Trial Judge declined the plea aforementioned by noticing that the allegation about the circumstances under which these two witnesses could not be examined earlier had surfaced only at the time of presentation of the impugned application and it did not find mention even in the earlier plea filed by the petitioner – complainant (only) for the recall of one PW. (That request had also been declined by the learned Trial Magistrate but it came to be allowed in revision by this Court). I called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner – complainant to indicate whether a grievance of the alleged influence by the accused – respondents had been made at any earlier point of time (prior to the filing of the present plea under Section 311 Cr.P.C.) before any Police Authority or Judicial Authority or not. The poser drew a blank from the learned counsel. Though the petitioner has not averred, it is apparent from the name of Balwinder Singh (one of the two witnesses proposed to be examined) that he is none- else or other than the own husband of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to deny it. 2 Crl. Misc. No.M-28733 of 2008 An accused has a constitutional right to have an expeditious trial. In this case, the trial is pending since 2000. The petitioner – complainant had filed a plea under Section 311 Cr.P.C. earlier as well. There is no material whatsoever on the file to prove that the two indicated witnesses refrained from entering appearance on account of the influence exerted by the private respondents – accused. In the light of foregoing discussion, the present petition is held to be completely denuded of merits. Dismissed. November 07, 2008 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3