ONKAR SINGH CHADHA Vs. GURPREET SINGH DHODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 20.11.2015 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby application under Sec. 311 Crimial P.C. moved by the respondent to examine himself in pre-charge evidence was allowed. The petition is contested by the respondent.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Undisputedly, the petitioners were summoned to face trial for commission of offences under Sections 406/420/506/120-B Penal Code in a complaint case by an order dated 27.01.2004. The respondent had examined himself as CW-1 besides examining CW-2(Yashupal) and CW-3 (Kulvinder Singh) in pre-summoning evidence. It is also not in dispute that the complainant did not examine himself in pre-charge evidence though CW- 2(Yashupal) and CW-3 (Kulvinder Singh) were examined. The complainant was cross-examined at length on various dates by the learned counsel for the petitioners. When the case was fixed for arguments on charge, it revealed that the respondent had not examined himself as CW-1 in pre-charge evidence.

(3.) I find no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order whereby the respondent was permitted to be examined as CW-1 in pre-charge evidence. The Trial Court has noted in the impugned order that an error had occurred during court proceedings and its liability cannot be fastened on the complainant alone. It further noted that the parties should not suffer on account of technicalities and the matter needs to be decided on merits.