Criminal Misc. No. M-6519 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-6519 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.08.2011 Narender Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sidharth Sarup, DAG, Haryana Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for respondent n0. 3 to 5. RAJAN GUPTA, J. This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 17.02.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul whereby application moved by the petitioner under section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the court below had committed a grave error in rejecting the application moved by the petitioner under section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to summon three other witnesses i.e. DSP Ramrattan, ASI Indraj Singh and clerk in the office of SP, Narnaul. According to him, under section 311 Cr.P.C. witnesses can be summoned at any stage and thus application ought to have been allowed. Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the prayer. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Criminal Misc. No. M-6519 of 2011 2 It appears that petitioner had lodged an FIR alleging commission of offence under sections 323, 307 & 120-B IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act. Pursuant to same investigation ensued. After presentation of final report the trial commenced. After all the prosecution witnesses cited in final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. had been examined, the petitioner moved two applications under section 311 Cr.P.C. One seeking to summon two doctors namely Dr. Inder Mohan and Pawan and other to summon three police officials. The trial court allowed the prayer to summon doctors but rejected the plea to summon the police officials. It observed that witnesses could not be summoned merely to satisfy the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has today submitted that three police officials are also important for the purpose of trial. On a query being put to learned counsel about the relivance of said witnesses, he submits that DSP Ramrattan conducted a inquiry while ASI Inderraj Singh had submitted a supplementary challan. The third police official i.e. clerk in the office of SP Narnaul was required to prove the complaint received in the said office on behalf of the complainant. The plea of learned counsel appears to be without any merit. Admittedly, the investigating officer stepped into the witness box and deposed. It is inexplicable how any inquiry conducted prior thereto would be relevant to the case. No plausible reason has been mentioned for examining the other two police officials also, one of whom submitted a supplementary challan and the other (a clerk) merely received the complaint received in the office of S.P. Narnaul. The prosecution examined all the witnesses as cited by it under section 173 Cr.P.C. Despite the fact that provision in section 311 Cr.P.C. has been Criminal Misc. No. M-6519 of 2011 3 liberally interpreted in various judgments, same cannot be invoked on grounds which appear to be totally frivolous. I am, thus, of the considered view that present petition is without any merit. The same is hereby dismissed. 19.08.2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) AJAY JUDGE