Criminal Misc. No. M-15879 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-15879 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.7.2009 Boom Buying Pvt. Ltd. and another .. Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Jatinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 22.4.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for summoning of respondent No.3- Naresh Kumar, who is stated to be ex- employee of complainant-respondent No.2, as witness, was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No. 3- Naresh Kumar is a necessary witness, to whom certain relevant questions are to be asked by the petitioners, which are required for the purpose of proper adjudication of the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners. He was in employment with respondent No. 2-complainant and is privity to the dealing between the parties. The rejection of application filed by the petitioners has resulted in total miscarriage of justice, as it is in violation of the spirit of Section 243 Cr.P.C., which entitles the court to direct summoning of any witness being relevant. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the application was rejected primarily for the reason that the petitioners had not been able to elaborate either in the application or in the arguments as to for what purpose presence of Naresh Kumar, who was ex-employee of respondent No. 2- Criminal Misc. No. M-15879 of 2009 [2] complainant, was required. It is a matter of fact that he had already left the job and was presently in Dubai, as is evident from the address mentioned in the memo of parties in the present petition. It is further noticed by the learned court below that effort of the petitioners is merely to delay the proceedings in the trial either by absenting from the court or by filing applications for exemption or for re-calling the witness. Even Section 243 Cr.P.C. specifically provides that in case the court comes to the conclusion that prayer for summoning a witness is made with an object to delay the proceedings, the same has to be rejected. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 2.7.2009 mk