1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 20180-M of 2009 Date of Decision: 30.7.2009 *** Sukhwinder Singh & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. P.S Paul, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Notice of State of Punjab alone. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab accepts notice. The petitioners are complainant as well as injured in case FIR No. 26 dated 1.4.2005, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 34 IPC, Police Station Kurali. They are aggrieved with order dated 24.3.2009 passed by the trial court, whereby the evidence of prosecution has been closed. Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that only the investigating officer and a medical expert have remained to be examined by the prosecutions and despite issuance of process many-a-times against them, their presence could not be procured since both of them left the job. It has been pointed out by learned counsel that the very investigating officer has now sought to be summoned by the accused in their defence, which is indicative of the fact that he intentionally avoided his presence before the Court. Thus, he requests for grant of one effective opportunity to the prosecution for conclusion of the evidence. The impugned order shows that sufficient opportunities were availed by the prosecution for its evidence, but failed to conclude the same. However, in the light of aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the 2 petitioners and keeping in view the fact that the dispute between the parties is required to be disposed of on merits and not on the basis of technicalities, this Court is of the considered opinion that one more effective opportunity is to be provided to the prosecution for its evidence. Even otherwise, rules and procedures are handmaid of justice and are meant for enhancing the same and not to scuttle it. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and order, under challenge, is quashed. The trial court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to the prosecution for its evidence and then proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the private respondents, since they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondent that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 30, 2009 Jiten