CRM No. M-29729 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-29729 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.10.2009 Jag Ram ...Petitioner Versus Bane Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherein orders dated 8th October, 2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon and order dated 12th August, 2008, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon have been impugned. Vide the said orders, the prayer of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling and reexamination of two witnesses was rejected. The complaint was lodged with the allegations that on 3rd March, 1999, the accused forcibly entered the house of the complainant and caused injuries to him and his wife. FIR No.53 dated 5th March, 1999 was registered at Police Station Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon under Sections 325, 323, 452, 147 and 149 IPC. At the time of trial, the prosecution examined three witnesses and evidence was closed on 4th August, 2009. The instant application was moved under Section 311 CRM No. M-29729 of 2009 2 Cr.P.C. for examining two police officials as prosecution witnesses i.e. MHC and Investigating Officer. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the case had been pending for the prosecution evidence since the year 1999 and the instant application had been moved after a decade. In view of the casual approach of the prosecution, the plea was found to be without any merit and thus declined. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. He upheld the order passed by the Magistrate. The revisional court observed that in a span of ten years, only three prosecution witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Ultimately, the evidence was closed by the impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. It is evident that the case has been pending before the trial court for almost ten years. The FIR was registered on 5.3.1999 for commission of offences under Sections 325, 323, 452, 147, 149 IPC. Thereafter, the matter kept on lingering for a decade. The prosecution examined only three witnesses during this period. The instant application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved for examining two police officials including the investigating officer. The complainant and doctor had already deposed as prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any legal infirmity with the orders passed by the courts below. The prosecution cannot be CRM No. M-29729 of 2009 3 allowed to unduly delay the conclusion of trial, particularly when it got ample opportunity to examine its witnesses. In any case, present petition has not been preferred by the prosecution (State). It has not challenged the impugned orders despite the fact that both the witnesses sought to be examined are police officials and case was argued before the trial court by the Additional Public Prosecutor. It appears that the order of the trial court was accepted by the prosecution. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for interference in inherent jurisdiction of this court. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE October 23, 2009 'rajpal'