In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No.116 of 2009 Date of Decision:February 26, 2009 Suresh Kumar ---Petitioner versus Lal Dass and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.S.M.Sharma,Advocate, for the petitioner *** SABINA, J. Petitioner-Suresh Kumar filed a complaint against respondents- Lal Dass, Ravinder and Suresh Pal under Sections 323/326/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide order dated 3.10.2008, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhari has discharged the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that merely because no witness was present on 3.10.2008, trial court had discharged the respondents. The petitioner was liable to be granted one more opportunity to lead his evidence. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that despite last opportunity, no witness of the complainant was present. Complainant had failed to conclude his pre charge evidence despite number of opportunities. In these circumstances, learned trial court had rightly held that there was no justification in granting another opportunity to the complainant to lead his Crl. Revision No.116 of 2009 -2- evidence. Complaint relates to the year 2002. Despite last opportunity, no witness of the complainant was present, the pre charge evidence of the complainant was rightly closed by order and respondents were consequently discharged. Thus, the impugned order does not call for any interference. This petition is dismissed accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE February 26, 2009 PARAMJIT