In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-24851 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.8.2010 Avtar Singh ......Petitioner Versus Kesar Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging order dated 22.7.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh whereby, the application of the petitioner for filing fresh list of witnesses was dismissed and evidence of prosecution was closed by order. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. The petitioner has filed a complaint under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The petitioner led his preliminary evidence and on the basis of the same, the accused were summoned to face the trial. Now the petitioner wants to examine Sudershan Singh @ Shantti, who is allegedly an eye witness to the occurrence. The said request of the petitioner has Criminal Misc. No.M-24851 of 2010 (O&M) -2- been declined by the trial Court as the witness, now sought to be examined, was not mentioned in the complaint nor he was examined by the petitioner in his preliminary evidence. It appears from the impugned order that the name of the witness now sought to be examined was not initially mentioned in the list of witnesses. However, the list of witnesses could not be traced on record and the petitioner has filed a fresh list of witnesses after about seven years of serving of notice of accusation on the accused. Since the name of the witness, who is now sought to be examined as an eye witness to the alleged occurrence, was not mentioned in the complaint, the discretion exercised by the trial Court, while declining the request of the petitioner to examine Sudershan Singh @ Shantti as a witness, calls for no interference. Moreover, when the complainant has failed to conclude his evidence in seven years after serving of notice of accusation, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in closing the prosecution evidence by order. Moreover, only Sudershan Singh @ Shantti was sought to be examined by the petitioner and no other witness remained to be examined by the petitioner. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 26, 2010 anita