1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 11909-M of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.10.2009 *** Gurmail Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Sr. DAG Haryana Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate. for the respondents. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The evidence of the prosecution in case FIR No. 92 dated 1.6.2002, registered under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Jakhal, has been closed by the order of the Court dated 1.4.2009, which has impugned by way of present petition by the complainant-petitioner, who is author of the FIR. The doctor and the investigating officer were remained to examine when the evidence of prosecution was closed by the Court since bailable warrants sent to them received back unexecuted and it was the last opportunity. There is force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the service upon the witnesses was beyond his control and he cannot be made to suffer if the process serving agency of the police failed to procure the presence of these witnesses. Although, it was the last opportunity and intimation was sent to SP, Fatehabad, but it is not clear from the impugned order as to with what report the bailable warrants of both the witnesses received back unexecuted? The tenor of the impugned order reveals that the old status of the case prompted the learned trial Court 2 to close the evidence of the prosecution, for disposal of the case, without looking to the fact that it is a case of hurt and their evidence is necessary for the just and proper decision of the case. The dispute between the parties is required to be disposed of on merits and not on the basis of technicalities. Rules and procedures are handmaid of justice and are meant for enhancing the same and not to scuttle it. Therefore, in the circumstances above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner-prosecution is entitled for one more effective opportunity for concluding its evidence. Accordingly, the impugned order datede 1.4.2009 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to the prosecution for its evidence. It shall be open to the Court below to adopt coercive method for procuring the presence of both these witnesses for the date fixed, with intimation to the respective Heads of the District of both the officials, so as to ensure their presence before the Court. After that the trial Court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 14, 2009 Jiten