Crl.R.No.1661 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.R.No.1661 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.7.2010. Amarjit Kaur ....................Petitioner v. State of Haryana and another .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Jainainder Saini,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mahabir Singh Sindhu,Addl.AG Haryana for respondent no.1. Mr.Sunil Saharan,Advocate for respondent no.2-accused. Jaswant Singh.J. Present revision petition under Section 401 Cr.PC has been filed by the complainant-petitioner for setting aside the order dated 16.4.2010 passed by learned JMIC,Hisar, whereby the prosecution evidence was closed by order of the Court and the case titled State vs. Ram Saroop was adjourned to 28.5.2010 for statement of accused under Section 319 Cr.PC and defence evidence,if any. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that only three police officials, who lodged FIR, prepared the site plan etc. and presented the report under Section 173 Cr.PC remain to be examined, upon whom the petitioner has no control to ensure their Crl.R.No.1661 of 2010 2 presence. I have perused the ground of revision as well as the zimni orders incorporated therein. A perusal of the same reveals that during the period from 8.6.2009 to 16.4.2010 (the date on which impugned order was passed) the case was listed 9 times. Out of these 9 dates,on two dates the Presiding Officer was on earned/casual leave and on one date i.e. 18.11.2009 the case could not be taken up as the Presiding Officer had to attend a Refresher Course at Chandigarh; on one date i.e. 4.2.2010 counsel for the accused-respondent sought date though the prosecution witnesses were present and as such they could not be examined. On 10.3.2010 prosecution was granted last opportunity to produce the remaining witnesses- police officials- through the office of SP Hisar for 16.4.2010. Despite that, it appears that prosecution took no steps to ensure the presence of official witnesses and the impugned order came to be passed on 16.4.2010. Thus, it is evident that on one hand the learned trial Court has failed to take effective and coercive steps to ensure the presence of official witnesses(police officials) and on the other hand, prosecution failed to comply with the order dated 10.3.2010 passed by the learned trial Court to summon the official witnesses through the office of SP Hisar. Admittedly, it is beyond the control of the complainant-petitioner to ensure the presence of the police officials, and as such she cannot be held to be at fault for the absence of the said witnesses on the last opportunity. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Crl.R.No.1661 of 2010 3 impugned order dated 16.4.2010 is set aside and the trial Court is directed to grant opportunity to prosecution/complainant to conclude its evidence. Learned trial Court is also directed to take coercive steps under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure to ensure the presence of the concerned police officials. Allowed in the above terms. 19.7.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge