MAHABEER SINGH Vs. SURINDER SINGH & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contour of the facts which needs a necessary mention for deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that a criminal case was registered against respondent No.1 (Surinder Singh son of Dhani Ram) vide FIR No.56 dated 29.5.2004 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A IPC by the police of Police Station, Siwan, District Kaithal.

(2.) After completion of all the codal formalities, the accused was charge-sheeted for the commission of indicated offences and case was slated for evidence of the prosecution. Although the prosecution availed many opportunities but it did not conclude and its evidence was closed by the Trial Court by way of order dated 6.5.2008.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order closing evidence, the State of Haryana and petitioner Mahabeer Singh (complainant) preferred Criminal Miscellaneous bearing No.M-3489 of 2009 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.M- 33658 of 2009, respectively. The coordinate Bench of this Court (R.C. Gupta, J) accepted the petitions through the medium of order dated 12.3.2010 (Annexure P-4) which, in substance, was as under:- "So far as the fact that the action of prosecution in not examining the witnesses when the case was fixed for prosecution evidence despite repeated opportunities is concerned, the respondent-accused can be compensated by way of costs. Hence, in my view ends of justice would be met if one opportunity is granted to prosecution to conclude the evidence as the same is material for decision of the case. Hence, the present petitions are accepted and impugned order dated 06.05.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guhla and order dated 11.11.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal, in revision are set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to give one effective date of hearing to prosecution to conclude its evidence. However, prosecution is burdened with costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the respondent-accused."