Crl. Rev. No. 2802 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No. 2802 of 2010 Date of Decision: October 11, 2010 Dr. Jaibir Jangra (Sharma) …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Abhishekh Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is an accused in a criminal case registered at the instance of prosecutrix (name with-held) alleging that the petitioner has sexually assaulted her. After the examination of prosecutrix, the petitioner moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to re-summon the prosecutrix to confront her with a C.D. in which she alongwith Dinesh Kumar with whom she had an alleged affairs/ relations and petitioner are Crl. Rev. No. 2802 of 2010 [2] shown to be present in police station on February 21, 2008 prior to the registration of FIR. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the defence to be produced by the petitioner could not be put to the prosecutrix. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance gone through the statement of prosecutrix and her cross-examination. A perusal of her cross-examination indicates that it has been suggested to her that she had been taken to police station. She has admitted her presence in the police station on February 21, 2008. She has even denied that any doctor from the Civil Hospital had come to the police station. She has also denied the suggestion that a departmental enquiry is pending against her pertaining to certain facts which are connected with this case also. After going through the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, I am of the opinion that all the facts which are sought to be put to the prosecutrix who impeach her credibility have already been brought on the record. The credibility of prosecutrix could certainly be impeached by producing the CD which is sought to be confronted to her. I am not convinced with the arguments of counsel for the petitioner that the defence of the petitioner might be prejudiced on account of not confronting the prosecutrix with the CD. The facts already put to her in cross-examination and replied to by her can be established by producing the CD to fortify the defence of the petitioner. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by disallowing the application of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Dismissed. Crl. Rev. No. 2802 of 2010 [3] October 11, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE