HAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the inhere it powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing of the order dated 12.2.1998 by which the Magistrate has allowed the examination of prosecution witnesses under Section 311, Cr. P.C. whereas he had already closed the evidence of the prosecution.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner, as narrated in the petition, is that on a statement made by Shiv Ram, FIR No. 494, dated 9/10/1989 was registered against him and after investigation, the police submitted its, report under Section 173, Cr. P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal on 3/2/1990. Charge sheet under Sections 323/324/325 read with Section 34, IPC was framed on 16/8/1990 against him and his co-accused. The petitioner along with his co-accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial and prosecution witnesses were summoned for 23/7/1991. The petitioner and his co-accused continued to attend the Court on every adjourned date. However, the evidence of the prosecution was never produced despite availing repeated opportunities upto 30A.1997 when the evidence of the prosecution was closed by order. Thereafter, on 17/8/1997, Sumer Chand sb Shiv Ram filed an application under Section 311, Cr. P.C. for producing the witness of the prosecution by way of additional evidence. The petitioner objected the application by filing reply on the ground that Section 311, Cr. P.C. was not applicable to the facts of the case and the prosecution witnesses deliberately absented themselves to appear before the Court to harass the petitioner and his co-accused and at that stage prosecution witness could not be examined and to re-open the case on false and frivolous grounds. The Magistrate, however, passed the impugned order on 12/2/1996 allowing the application under Section 311, Cr. P.C. for additional evidence which is now sought to be quashed by way of the present petition.

(3.) On notice of the petition, written statement has been filed on behalf of the State of Haryana wherein objection is raised that this petition is not maintainable and revision petition could have been filed besides that there is no illegality in the order under challenge. However, the factual position has not been disputed regarding pendency of the case for sufficient long time and non production of evidence by the prosecution.