RAMESH CHANDER Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated May 25, 1999 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari. Vide the aforesaid order the evidence of the prosecution has been closed by order of the Court. The petitioners are the complainants who state that in fact the FIR No. 62 was registered at their instance on February 25, 1994 under sections 354 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus they state that in fact they are the really aggrieved party and the prosecution has either been in connivance with the accused or has been utterly negligent. However, it is claimed that the net result of the closure of the prosecution evidence by order of the Court affects the complainants directly. It has been stated in the petition that in fact prosecutrix Krishna Devi was examined in the case on January 12, 1996 as PW1 but thereafter no other witness has been examined by the trial court despite the fact that on many occasions Ramesh Chander and Murti Devi PWs had come to the Court. It has further been stated that there are only seven witnesses cited as prosecution witness in the case and beside Ramesh Chander, Krishna Devi and Murti Devi, all the remaining four witnesses are the official witnesses. In this view of the matter, it has been prayed that the order closing the evidence of the prosecution by order of the Court be set aside and an opportunity be granted to the prosecution to lead further evidence and a direction be issued to the learned trial Court to secure the presence of the remaining witnesses by using the process of law.

(2.) AFTER going through the record, I find that the prayer made by the petitioners is wholly justified. Although the prosecution evidence has been closed by order of the court because of non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses but in fact it is the complainants who are affected by closing of the evidence by order of the Court. As a matter of fact, the learned Magistrate instead of closing the prosecution evidence should have secured the presence of the official witnesses of the prosecution by using coercive process of law. In these circumstances, I quash the order dated May 25, 1999 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari attached as annexure P/1 with the petition and direct the learned trial Magistrate to grant opportunity to the prosecution to lead further evidence. The learned trial Magistrate is further directed to secure the presence of the remaining prosecution witnesses by using the process in accordance with law. The learned trial Court is further directed that since the case has become very old, therefore, the proceedings in the trial be concluded as expeditiously as possible but not later than December 31, 2002. Order accordingly.