CRM NO. M-23543 OF 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM NO. M-23543 OF 2011 (O&M) DECIDED ON : 29.11.2011 Paramjit Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, AAG, Punjab. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 25.07.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar, vide which the application of the petitioner/accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C for cross-examination of the mother of the prosecutrix (complainant), was declined. Briefly stated, the petitioner is facing trial in respect of FIR No. 158 dated 11.04.2009 under Sections 363/ 366-A/ 342/ 506/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sadar, Amritsar. CRM NO. M-23543 OF 2011 (O&M) -2- The cross-examination of mother of the prosecutrix (complainant) was conducted by learned counsel for the petitioner on 15.02.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C on 15.06.2011 for further cross-examination of the complainant with the allegations that material questions could not be put to her. The said application was resisted by the learned State counsel and it was mentioned that complainant was allowed to cross examine at length by learned counsel for the petitioner and as such, the application was declined. Learned trial Court, after hearing both the sides, dismissed the application with the observation that due opportunity has been granted to learned counsel for the petitioner to cross examine the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are that he instigated the main accused Sukhdev Singh @ Deba to take away the prosecutrix. He has further contended that he is a government employee and has earlier same type of litigation with the complainant. He has further contended that he wants to cross examine the complainant in respect of previous litigation as well as compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the complainant which was prior to the lodging of the present FIR. The law and procedure are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart it. The Parliament in its own CRM NO. M-23543 OF 2011 (O&M) -3- wisdom has incorporated Section 311 Cr.P.C for additional evidence or to recall the witness for further cross examination to meet the ends of justice. The contention of the petitioner is that he could not put question to complainant in respect of previous compromise as well as litigation with the complainant. In my view, further cross examination of the mother of prosecutrix (complainant) in respect of earlier litigation would put light to the facts of the case and is essential for just and proper decision of the case. The trial Court has dismissed the application simply on the ground that opportunity has been given to the petitioner to cross examine the complainant. Consequently, the petition stands accepted. The impugned order stands set-aside and the petitioner is allowed to cross examine the mother of prosecutrix (complainant) Paramjit Kaur (PW-1). Disposed of accordingly. NOVEMBER 29, 2011 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE