IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Misc. No.M-3489 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.03.2010. State of Haryana. ...... PETITIONER Versus Surender Singh. ...... RESPONDENT 2. Crl. Misc. No.M-33658 of 2009(O&M) Mahabeer Singh. ...... PETITIONER Versus Surinder Singh and another. ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. P.M.Anand, Addl.A.G., Haryana for petitioner – State in CRM No.M-3489 of 2009 for respondent – State in CRM No.M-33658 of 2008 Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM No.M-33658 of 2008 Mr. Harsh Garg, Advocate for the respondent in CRM No.M-3489 of 2009 for respondent No.1 in CRM No.M-33658 of 2008 *** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) This order disposes of both the aforementioned petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 06.05.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla vide which evidence of Crl.Misc.No.M-3489 of 2009 prosecution was closed and order dated 11.11.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide which revision against the said order was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. Briefly stated, respondent – accused, Surender Singh is facing trial in FIR No.56 dated 29.05.2004, registered under Sections 279/337/338/304-A IPC at P.S. Siwan, District Kaithal. Charge against him has also been framed and the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. After availing eight opportunities, prosecution could not conclude evidence and hence, evidence of prosecution was closed vide impugned order of learned trial Court. Feeling aggrieved against the said order State of Haryana filed revision before learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal. However, the revision was dismissed on the plea that the order being interlocutory, the revision against the said order was not maintainable. It has been argued by learned counsel for the revision petitioners i.e. learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned State counsel that only three material witnesses remain to be examined i.e., two Medical Officers and one Investigating Officer and that only one opportunity be granted to prosecution to conclude the evidence as the witnesses are material for decision of this case. It is further contended that as order being interlocutory and as no revision against order was held to be maintainable, this Court by exercising inherent power under Section Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash the interlocutory order in the interest of justice. They have also placed reliance upon State, through Special Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu @Afshan Guru and others, 2003(2) RCR(Crl.) 860. Learned counsel for the respondent – accused has argued that the 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-3489 of 2009 present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in view of the fact that right of revision against said order has already been availed by the present petitioners and the same has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal. He has placed reliance upon Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1977 SC 2185. The order closing evidence of prosecution by learned trial Court is an interlocutory order hence, no revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. was maintainable against the said order and hence, the revision was rightly dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal. However, there is no bar in this case to entertain petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the said order closing the evidence of prosecution by learned trial Court. It has been so held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Navjot Sandhu’s case (supra). The witnesses sought to be examined by the prosecution are material for decision of this case being Medical officers and Investigating Officer. So far as the fact that the action of prosecution in not examining the witnesses when the case was fixed for prosecution evidence despite repeated opportunities is concerned, the respondent – accused can be compensated by way of costs. Hence, in my view ends of justice would be met if one opportunity is granted to prosecution to conclude the evidence as the same is material for decision of the case. Hence, the present petitions are accepted and impugned order dated 06.05.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla and order dated 11.11.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal, in revision are set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to give one effective date of hearing to prosecution to conclude its evidence. However, prosecution is burdened with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the respondent – accused. Disposed of accordingly. 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-3489 of 2009 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 12, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 4