CRM-M No. 26064 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM-M No. 26064 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.9.2010 Jagir Dass and another ......Petitioners Versus Meena Kumari .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for Mr.Barun Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of order dated 8.5.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, whereby the application moved by the petitioners under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence was dismissed and for quashing of order dated 10.8.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. CRM-M No. 26064 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “Power to summon material witness, or examine person present: Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re- examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.” As per the above provision, the Court at any stage of trial may summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any person already examined if it is necessary for the just decision of the case. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, while dismissing the application filed by the petitioners, in para 3 of the impugned order, has held as under:- “From the perusal of the file, it reveals that the present complaint was filed in the year 2007. Both the parties had led their evidence. Respondent evidence except some document has already been closed. Earlier also application on similar grounds has been dismissed. In my considered view this application has been filed just to delay the disposal of the case. No doubt, welfare of CRM-M No. 26064 of 2010 (O&M) 3 the children is the paramount consideration but this is to be seen by the Court at the time of deciding the main petition. Moreover, this is a case of Domestic Violence and there is no need to separately called both the children to appear in the witness. Hence, the present application is hereby dismissed.” Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 8.5.2010 (Annexure P-4), has held as under: “I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. The learned trial Court has dismissed the application mainly on the ground that present complaint was filed in the year 2007 and both the parties have led their evidence. The evidence of the respondent has already been closed except tendering certain documents. It is further observes that earlier also an application on similar grounds has been dismissed by the Court. With regard to question of welfare of the children, it was observed that it will be seen at that time of deciding the petition. So in these circumstances, the application was dismissed. No doubt while deciding the interim custody of the minor children the Appellate Court of Sh.R.K.Sondhi learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh called one of the children and decided the CRM-M No. 26064 of 2010 (O&M) 4 matter but it is also on record that the said matter is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court. It seems that the present petitioners want to delay the matter on one pretext or the other. There is no merit in the revision petition, the same is already dismissed.” The reasons given by Courts below, while dismissing the application moved by the petitioners under Section 313 Cr.P.C. are sound reasons. The petitioners had closed their evidence. The welfare of the children would be taken in consideration by the Court at the time of deciding the main petition. At this stage, the matter for consideration before the Court is qua interim custody of the minor children. Hence, no ground warranting interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) September 28, 2010 JUDGE anita