@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M.P. No. 637/2009 APPLICANT: Laxman Lahvani, son of Shn’ Wadhumal Complainant Lalwani, aged about 43 years, msident of Aamapara, RS. Dhamtari, Tehsil and District Dhamtari. Vs. RESPONDENTS: 1. Ashok Kumar Juneja, son of ShJ‘i Accusad Bhiman Das Juneja, aged about 44 years, residont of Dak Bangla Wam, Dhamtan', Tehsil and District Dhamtari. ' Rajkumari Tolani, wife of Shn' Ashok Kumar Tolani, aged about 42 years, resident of Gali No. 7, Teh'handha, Raipur. M PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:— Shn' B.P. Shanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondents not noticed. ORAL— ORDER (Passed on 03/ 12/2009) . This is a petiu'on under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) for quashment of the order dated 18/ 1 1/2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T,C.) Balod District Duig in Sessions Trial No. 36/08 denying the opportunity of examining additioxial witness Dr. SYN. Madhariya in support of the case of the prosecuiioncomplainant and for suitable diie’ction to the Court / concerned. 2. Leanied counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant has filed the complaint under Section 307 against the respondents NO. 1 8r, 2 in connection with the on‘ence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the lndian Penal Code. During course of’inquiiy under Chapter XV of the Code. Complainant has examined after Dr. Sandeep Dave who stated in his statement that injumd was examined by Dr. S.N. Madhariya because that was a case of head injuxy then they tiled the process for issuance of the summon to Dr. S.N. Madhariya during‘ course of inquily on the basis of suEIcient material judicial Magistrate, Balod has committed the case to the Court of Sessions. . During the course of trial complainant made a Iequest for examination of Dr. S.N. Madhariya but same has been rejected Vide order dated 18/ 1 1 [09 on the ground that complainant has not named this Witness in his list of Wimesses filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at the time of inquiry un’der Chapter XV of the Code. . Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the matter of Saveeda Faxhana shamim Vs. State of Bihax & Am. repoxted in 2008 SAR (Criminal) 641 1'11 which Apex Court has held that supplementary list of witness can be furnished by the complainant even at the stage of trial before the Magistrate. . In the present case petitioner has tiled the application for issuance of summon to Dr. S.N. Madhariya before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at the time of inquiry under Chapter XV of the Code but any how hewas not examined during the course of inquiry at the stage of trial again i petitioner has made a request for calling Dr. S.N. Madhariya who has examined the injured and another Dr. Sandeep Dave has specihcally stated that injured was examined by Dr. S.N. Madhariya. ’I‘o prove the injury of injured and its nature the Dr. S.N. Madhan‘ya is material witness to unfold the story of the complainant. in the present case Shri Dr. S.N. Madhariya is not new person or witness Whom complainant is calling at the stage of trial, but his name appears at the time of inquiry under Chapter XV of the Code. Petitioner has paid process for issuance of summon to Dr. S.N. Madhariya. This fact is sunicient compliance of ~§_ the provisions of Sub Section 2 of Section 204 of the Cod€ it appearS that learned Additional Sessions Judge has rcjected the pray only on the ground that name of Shri Dr. S.N. Madhan'ya does not hnd place in the ~ list of witnesses hled along with the compliant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an illegality in rejecting the request made on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of summon to Dr. S.N. Madhariya which evidence is even necessary under Section 311 of the Code to unfold the story of the complainant. Consequently, with a View to secure the ends ofjustice the petition is allowed. The order impugned is hereby quashed. Court: below shall issue the process to the Witness Dr. S.N. Madhariya necessaly pmcess including the cost of the Witness be paid by the petitioner within 15 days Mm today before the trial Court. . Certified copy as per rules.