Criminal Misc. No. 10244 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : April 17, 2009 Shiv Singh ....Petitioner versus Sukhdev Kaur ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal Present : Mr. DS Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner Pritam Pal,J. (Oral) Petitioner has brought this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order dated 26.7.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar (Annexure P/5) whereby an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent Sukhdev Kaur was allowed and thereafter the petitioner also challenged the aforesaid order of the Magistrate before the court of Session. There also he could not succeed and ultimately his revision was also dismissed vide order dated 10.1.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar (Annexure P/6). This is how feeling aggreived, the petitioner has come up before this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the material placed from the file, it is made out that, in fact, the Criminal Misc. No. 10244 of 2009 (O&M) -2- report prepared by Handwriting Expert was found missing from the file of the trial court and ultimately the file was got reconstructed with the permission of the court and thereafter a photostat copy of the report prepared by the Handwriting Expert was allowed to be placed on the file with the consent of the parties. After that the complainant moved an application for the examination of the Handwriting Expert who had prepared the earlier report. The petitioner raised objection before the trial court as well as the Court of Session that Handwriting Expert should not have been ordered to be summoned to prove the report. During the course of arguments, this Court specifically put query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is ready to dispense with the mode of proof of the report which has been placed on the file in the shape of photostat copy. To that, Mr. Pheruman submits that he has no objection if the mode of proof to prove the report of the Handwriting Expert is dispensed with but at the same time he blows hot and cold while saying that the report is not to be accepted by the petitioner. His, this statement is contrary to the spirit in issue. Thus, taking an overall view of the fact that the evidence of the petitioner is yet to be closed, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in both the orders passed by the courts below. Even otherwise, under section 311 Cr.P.C. the Court has ample power to summon any witness at any stage for just decision of the case. So, no interference is called for. Dismissed in limine. ( Pritam Pal ) April 17, 2009 Judge Criminal Misc. No. 10244 of 2009 (O&M) -3- 'dalbir'