Crl. Misc. No. M-23835 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-23835 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: August 08, 2011 Satbir @ Budhram .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Smt. Sunita Devi and another ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing of the impugned order dated 16.05.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide which order dated 13.07.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by JMIC, Mahendergarh has been set aside. It appears that the trial Magistrate rejected the prayer for re- medical examination of petitioner Satbir @ Budhram. The complainant side filed a revision petition, whereupon Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide impugned order dated 16.05.2011 allowed the revision, set aside the order passed by the Magistrate dated 13.07.2010 and directed the Trial Court to pass fresh order in accordance with law in view of the observations made in the order. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner should have been impleaded as a party because the petitioner has to be subjected to re-medical examination. On the second count, it has been pleaded that since it is a cross Crl. Misc. No. M-23835 of 2011 2 case, even the petitioner made an application for re-examination of the injured on the other side. Even that application was dismissed by the Trial Magistrate. On the side of the petitioner, however, no revision was carried. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. The case being projected is that in fact there was no fracture on the person of the petitioner, however, the medico legal report has been maneuvered/manufactured through the medical officer. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would certainly be in the interest of justice to re-examine medically the petitioner as it would establish whether the petitioner suffered a fracture and injury, as projected before the Court. It is in the interest of substantial justice that re-medical examination is conducted. In these circumstances, I do not trace any illegality in order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul on 16.05.2011. So far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned that the petitioner did not file a revision, the petitioner is at liberty to file a revision petition against the order passed by Trial Magistrate, so as to get the injured on the other side medically re-examined. Petition is accordingly dismissed. 08.08.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE