HARDIAL SINGH Vs. BENI CHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C filed by the complainant petitioner, seeking quashment of the order dated 1.12.1999, copy Annexure P-3, passed by JMIC, closing the evidence of complainant petitioner by the order of the court.

(2.) Facts which are necessary for the decision of the present case are that the petitioner had filed criminal complaint under Sections 506/448/380/34 I.P.C. against present respondents. After recording preliminary evidence, learned Magistrate had ordered summoning of respondent No.1 Beni Chand only as an accused. During trial the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 1.12.1999, declined the request of the complainant petitioner for adjournment for summoning witness from the police post considering that the complaint pertains to the February 1994 and accordingly closed the evidence of the complainant by the order of the court and the case was adjourned for examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved against this order of the learned Magistrate, petitioner filed revision petition before the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 16.12.1999, dismissed the said revision petition on the ground that it was against an interlocutory order and no revision petition was maintainable.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while closing the evidence of the complainant petitioner, vide order dated 1.12.1999, the learned Magistrate had observed that earlier the petitioner had not moved any application for summoning witness from police post. It has been submitted that the application dated 4.2.1998, copy Annexure P-4, was filed before the learned Magistrate for summoning MHC of PS Division No. 2, Ludhiana along with other witnesses. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is nothing to indicate that MHC of PS Division No. 2 Ludhiana was included in the list of witnesses which was originally filed along with the complaint. If that be so, by merely adding the name of MHC, PS Division No. 2, Ludhiana along with witnesses for summoning, those witnesses and depositing their diet money, in my opinion, would not be enough and could not be made a ground for claiming that earlier also MHC PS Division No. 2, Ludhiana was summoned by the petitioner as witness.