IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-25707 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 14.09.2009 Sudarshan Kumar ....Petitioner(s) vs. Darshan Singh ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Ashok Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. The present petition is for quashing of the order dated 22.7.2009 (Annexure P-6) vide which the learned trial Court has dismissed the application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the complainant. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the Court has without application of mind proceeded to dismiss the application of the petitioner-complainant on the ground that an earlier application moved by him under Section 311 Cr.P.C. had not been accepted by the Court. Counsel further contends that the prayer in the present application is for examination of the complainant himself and, therefore, one opportunity may be granted subject to payment of heavy costs. I have gone through the records of the case and the impugned order in particular. A perusal of the records indicates that the notice of accusation was served on the respondent-accused on 28.4.2004 and from that day onwards, the case has been lingering on before the trial Court where the accused is being prosecuted. Various opportunities were granted to the complainant to lead his evidence. The evidence of the complainant came to an end on the basis of statement given through the power of Crl.Misc.No.M-25707 of 2009 -2- attorney of the complainant who had been pursuing his case. The said statement was given on 12.1.2008. Thereafter, the complainant sat over the matter. It would not be out of way to mention here that on earlier occasion also when the evidence of the complainant was closed by the Court by order, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant on 19.5.2005 which however was dismissed by the trial Court on 20.1.2007. That order has attained finality. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that an earlier application was with regard to the different cause of action whereas the present application is for different and separate cause of action. In the earlier application, he had sought to produce certain witnesses to prove the documents but in the present application, the complainant himself has proposed to be examined. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that the evidence of the petitioner-complainant was closed on the statement of the power of attorney himself before the trial Court on 12.1.2008. The case is pending since 2004 if it is taken from the point of view of the accused whereas the date of initiation of the case is 16.9.2002. There can be no doubt that as the complainant has certain rights, similar rights are conferred on the accused to the extent that he is entitled to a fair and speedy trial. Delay in the trial would itself be a punishment for an accused where he is being on each date forced to come present in Court and face the accusations therein. Finding no merit in the present application, the same stands dismissed. September 14, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE