Crl. Misc. No. M-15936 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-15936 of 2009 Date of Decision : 03.07.2009 Dharamvir .....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana .....Respondent Before : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present : Mr. H.S. Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.05.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala whereby evidence of the prosecution was closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order on the ground that it is necessary to examine the two doctors to prove the injury suffered by the complainant. According to the counsel, the two doctors could not be examined earlier to prove the fracture suffered by the complainant. The trial court however, dismissed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that this Court in its order dated 18.04.2009 passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-4229 of 2009 gave one opportunity to the complainant to examine the two doctors as prosecution witnesses. Pursuant to the order, dasti summons were also given to the complainant for effecting services on the doctors. However, the complainant failed to serve them. While rejecting the prayer, the trial court also observed that the case pertains to the year Crl. Misc. No. M-15936 of 2009 2 1996 and falls within the category of 200 oldest cases pending before the trial court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for granting another opportunity to the petitioner to examine the two doctors as prosecution witnesses. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the complainant and not by the prosecutor. Moreover, it appears that complainant approached this court vide Crl. Misc. No. M-4229 of 2009 wherein only one opportunity was granted to examine the two doctors to prove the injury allegedly suffered by him. The trial cannot be allowed to continue endlessly. The proceedings have to come to an end someday. The trial of this case has been pending since the year 1996. Under the circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for interference in the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is hereby dismissed. 03.07.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE