IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.22428-M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 MAHAVIR SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. OP Sharda, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. KS Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing order dated 7.7.2008 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga in case titled 'Mahavir Singh v. State' arising out of FIR No.61 dated 8.9.2000 under Sections 354, 323, 506, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, City Moga. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had engaged a counsel. ASI Gurdev Singh and Nirbhai Singh were required to be cross-examined on 17.12.2003. Counsel for the petitioner, however, did not come present and the said two witnesses could not be cross-examined. The court has treated the cross-examination of the said witnesses as 'Nil'. When an application was filed for recalling the witnesses, the same was dismissed vide order dated 7.7.2008. Criminal Misc.22428-M of 2008 2 Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that it is not an isolated incident. The matter has been kept pending on account of conduct of the petitioner. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. An overall consideration of the matter indicates that on 17.12.2003, the matter was taken up during morning hours. ASI Gurdev Singh and Nirbhai Singh were present. A request was made on behalf of the petitioner that he was waiting for his counsel, so the examination be not recorded. The matter was deferred to 11.30 a.m. The witnesses were present for cross-examination, however, the counsel for the petitioner did not come. The matter was, again, deferred to 12.30 p.m. Again, a similar request was made and the matter was put off till post-lunch session. The matter was taken up at 2.00 p.m. The court has recorded that in view of the fact that the witnesses have not been cross-examined, the court is left with no alternative except to treat the cross-examination of the witnesses as 'Nil'. An application was filed for recalling the witnesses, which has been dismissed on 7.7.2008, i.e. after 4-1/2 years. The matter is pending before the trial Court for 24.9.2008. Having regard to the fact that examination-in-chief of the two witnesses has been completed and also the fact that the witnesses are relevant to decide the issue, it is clear that the rights of the petitioner would be adversely affected in case the cross-examination of the witnesses is not allowed. The petitioner, on his part, had engaged a counsel who, however, did not appear. The petitioner himself was present Criminal Misc.22428-M of 2008 3 in court and had made a request for adjournment of the matter to enable the counsel to appear and perform his duty. Surely, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner cannot be held liable. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Order dated 7.7.2008 (Annexure P-2) is set aside. The two witnesses viz. ASI Gurdev Singh and Nirbhai Singh, would be summoned either for 24.9.2008 or any other date, as would be fixed by the trial Court. The petitioner would be allowed one opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, however, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs. September 18, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE