Crl. Misc. No.M-11415 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-11415 of 2009 Date of Decision: 4 - 5 - 2009 Sukhbir Singh @ Sukha and another .....Petitioners v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.M.K.Dogra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 16.4.2009, Annexure P2, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the next date of hearing in the present case fixed before the trial Court is 8.5.2009. It is stated at bar that on 8.5.2009, case is fixed for recording defence evidence. An application was filed by the petitioner in the Court Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar wherein he prayed that SI/SHO Manjit Singh then posted as SHO, Nurmahal at the time of registration of the case be summoned along with zimni dated 1.3.2005 and zimni Nos.1 to 14 Crl. Misc. No.M-11415 of 2009 [2] regarding the the enquiry conducted by SI/SHO Manjit Singh and endorsed by DSP Kamaljit Singh, as a result whereof Sukhbir Singh son of Harpal Singh and Harpal Singh son of Sadhu Singh were found innocent and placed in Column No.2 in report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. This prayer was not accepted by the trial Court. The trial Court was of the view that this application has been filed at a belated stage only to delay the trial. The Court found that statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 21.1.2008 and case was fixed for defence evidence on 18.2.2008, 1.3.2008, 17.3.2008, 16.4.2008, 23.5.2008, 22.8.2008, 16.9.2008, 20.9.2008 and 11.11.2008. After availing so many opportunities and thereafter on many opportunities when defence witnesses were examined, present application was filed only on 16.4.2009. The trial Court found that petitioner had availed 17 opportunities. Otherwise also, prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered in view of embargo under Section 172 (2) Cr.P.C. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) May 4, 2009. JUDGE RC