Crl. Misc. No. M-3011 of 2011 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-3011 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 31.01.2011 Som Nath and others ..........Petitioners Versus Satpal and another ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. SS Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioners. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. Crl. Misc. No. 5580 of 2011 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-3011 of 2011 The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of petitioners, namely, Som Nath, Gurmeet Singh and Vikram Singh for quashing of order dated 20.12.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra vide which pre-charge evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that previously there was possibility of compromise between the parties and request for adjournment was made on various dates but due to some reason, the compromise could not be effected between the parties and ultimately vide order dated 20.12.2010, pre-charge evidence of the petitioners was closed by order of the Court. Learned counsel further contends that one Crl. Misc. No. M-3011 of 2011 (O&M) (2) opportunity be granted to the petitioners to conclude their evidence. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the impugned order as well as other documents available on the record. Admittedly, in the case in hand, complaint was filed on 30.4.2003 and the accused were ordered to be summoned vide order dated 20.1.2004. The presence of both the accused was secured upto 7.9.2004 and the case was adjourned on various dates for leading pre- charge evidence but inspite of various opportunities, the petitioners were not able to conclude their pre-charge evidence. Cost was also imposed upon the petitioners for not producing pre-charge evidence and on 18.12.2010 last opportunity was granted but on that date also counsel for the complainant was not ready to get the evidence concluded and statement was made that one more last opportunity may be given. Inspite of another last opportunity being granted, no evidence was produced inspite of lapse of more than six years. It shows that the petitioners were not interested to produce pre-charge evidence as numerous opportunities were granted to them. Two times last opportunity was granted and cost was also imposed upon the petitioners but inspite of that pre-charge evidence was not concluded by them. No ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. January 31, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No Crl. Misc. No. M-3011 of 2011 (O&M) (3)