IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 24754-M of 2005 Date of decision:- 19.5.2008 Prehlad @ Pehlad ...Petitioner. Versus Nirmala ...Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 12.4.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palwal, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for permission to lead additional evidence in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute with the respondent-wife was settled finally on payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- as permanent alimony and accordingly the application itself was not maintainable. It is this fact which is sought to be proved by leading additional evidence and producing bank account of brother of the respondent-wife showing the deposit of the amount and also a clerk from the S.S.P. Office, Faridabad showing the statement made by respondent and her brother about the compromise. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner in his statement appearing as DW1 in present case stated that amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as settled was given to Ex-Sarpanch, Ulhan. The same fact was Criminal Misc. No. 24754-M of 2005 -2- stated in the the statement of another witness Sumran Singh who corroborated the stand taken by the petitioner. The story now sought to be projected is an after thought just to delay the proceedings. The respondent never paid any amount, it was trust money which was given to Ex-Sarpanch, Ulhan. Even otherwise the fact was within the knowledge of the petitioner who had already led evidence. Merely on account of his lapse he cannot be permitted to fill in the lacuna by leading additional evidence. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The material which is sought to be produced by leading the additional evidence was well within knowledge of the petitioner at the time when the evidence was led initially. Not only this there is no whisper about the material which is sought to be produced by way of additional evidence. Even in his own statement, the petitioner appearing as DW1 stated that the amount in question was given to ex-sarpanch, Ulhan and not to the respondent. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. May 19, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) ritu-II JUDGE