Crl.Rev.No. 1637 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 1637 of 2009 Date of decision: 31.3.2010 Ajit Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.D.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C” for short) challenging the order dated 2.6.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby the application moved by the petitioners under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination of prosecution witnesses had been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties had arrived at a compromise. A petition was filed seeking Crl.Rev.No. 1637 of 2009 2 quashing of the FIR on the basis of the compromise but the same was got dismissed as withdrawn to enable the petitioners to file an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioners but the same has been dismissed by the trial Court. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed this petition, whereas, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the petitioners were bound to honour their compromise. The facts in this case are peculiar. Although the statements of the prosecution witnesses had been recorded in this case yet thereafter, parties had arrived at a compromise and they filed a petition seeking quashing of the FIR. In CRM-M No.2477 of 2009, the following order was passed by this Court on 29.4.2009:- “ Counsel for the petitioners prays that the present petition be dismissed as withdrawn he proposes to file an application for re-examination of the witnesses. Ordered accordingly.” In pursuance to the said order, the petitioners had filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recalling of prosecution witnesses. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the larger interest of justice, the trial Court should have allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to enable the petitioners to further cross-examine the prosecution Crl.Rev.No. 1637 of 2009 3 witnesses in terms of the compromise as it was a subsequent development. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 311 Cr.P.C. stands allowed. SABINA) JUDGE March 31, 2010 anita