IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1847 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: August 25, 2011 Jaswinder Pal .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Vide order passed by this Court on 29.7.2011, one opportunity was given to cross examine PW-1, Santosh Kumari @ Sonu Bala. 2. Vide impugned order, it has been brought out that on 5.8.2011 Santosh Kumari did not appear and has been summoned for cross examination for 29.8.2011. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out, from the allegations made in the complaint/ FIR, that Crl. Revision No.1847 of 2011 [2] Santosh Kumari is the main affected person and substantial justice would be the victim in case the complainant is not allowed to be cross examined. 4. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 5. Considering the allegations made in the FIR and the fact that the witness has to come from abroad, I deem it appropriate to allow cross examination of PW-1, Santosh Kumari @ Sonu Bala, to be completed. 6. Ordered accordingly. 7. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) August 25, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?