Crl.M.No. M-27838/2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.M.No. M-27838/2010(O&M) Date of decision: 22.9.2010. Manpreet Singh ....................Petitioners. v. State of UT and another .....................Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh. Present:- Mr.Gautam Dutt,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J. Challenge in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is to the order dated 21.8.2010 (P5) passed by learned JMIC,Chandigarh, whereby the application moved by accused- respondent no.2 for recalling the PWs for cross examination was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- Facts in brief are that petitioner claims to be owner of Shop No.119, Old Ropar Road, Mansa Devi Chowk, Mani Majra whereas respondent no.2 is alleged to be a trespasser occupying the same. After the attempts of the petitioner to get the said shop vacated failed, he filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. The learned Magistrate referred the matter to police,which inquired into the matter and submitted report. As per report of the police no offence was said to Crl.M.No. M-27838/2010(O&M) 2 have been made out and respondent no.2 was allegedly found to be a tenant in the shop in question. Accordingly, the learned JMIC Chandigarh vide order dated 15.9.2008 (P1) dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. Petitioner challenged the said order dated 15.9.2008 (P1) by filing Crl.M.No.M-29554 of 2008 under Section 482 Cr.PC. This Court, after hearing both sides set aside the order dated 15.9.2008 (P1) and remanded the matter back to learned JMIC. It is thereafter that FIR No.444 of 2009 under Section 448 IPC came to be registered against accused-respondent no.2 at PS Manimajra and is pending trial at the stage of prosecution evidence, in the Court of learned JMIC Chandigarh. A perusal of the averments made in the petition show that on 13.1.2010 charge was framed against respondent no.2 and case was fixed for prosecution evidence for 6.2.2010. On 6.2.2010 examination in chief of one PW-Sher Singh was recorded and the case was adjourned to 8.4.2010 for further prosecution evidence. On 8.4.2010 examination in chief of the petitioner was recorded and on the request made by counsel for respondent no.2, his cross examination was deferred to 12.4.2010, on which date the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 5.5.2010. Since petitioner was not cross examined on 5.5.2010, the matter was adjourned to 20.5.2010 for PWs subject to payment of Rs.200/- as costs. On 20.5.2010 since neither the costs were paid nor petitioner and/or PW SP Singh were cross examined so their cross examination on behalf of Crl.M.No. M-27838/2010(O&M) 3 respondent no.2 was treated to be as nil. Thereafter the matter was listed on 7.6.2010 and 26.7.2010, but allegedly no witnesses were examined. On 27.7.2010 an application was moved on behalf of respondent no.2 for grant of one opportunity to cross examine the petitioner. Notice of the application was given. Petitioner filed no reply to the same. After hearing both sides, the learned JMIC vide impugned order dated 21.8.2010(P5), which is subject matter of the present petition, granted one opportunity to respondent to cross examine PWs Manpreet Singh-petitioner and S.P.Singh, subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-. Hence the present petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the passing of the order dated 20.5.2010 whereby cross examination of PWs Manpreet Singh and SP Singh was treated as nil, the respondent waited till 27.7.2010 to move an application for recalling the said witnesses for their cross examination. It is thus contended, that respondent no.2 is deliberately trying to delay the case. After hearing the learned counsel and keeping in view the above factual position, in my opinion, no case for interference, in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is made out. It is an admitted position that the prosecution did not oppose the application dated 27.7.2010 by filing any reply before the learned Magistrate. It is also not disputed that respondent has only been granted one opportunity to cross examine PWs Manpreet Singh Crl.M.No. M-27838/2010(O&M) 4 and SP Singh and that too subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-. The learned trial Court while allowing the application has noticed that cross examination of these two witnesses is necessary for granting adequate opportunity to accused- respondent to prove his innocence. In my opinion, granting one opportunity to respondent to cross examine PWs would not cause much delay and rather it would be in the interest of justice to give an opportunity to respondent to defend himself properly. Further, it is the case of the petitioner himself that PWs could not be examined due to non-availability of the counsel for the respondent. For the fault of his counsel, respondent cannot be made to suffer. No other point has been urged. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this petition the same is hereby dismissed. 22.9.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge