KAPIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for seeking the quashing of the order dtd. 20/7/2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, whereby the evidence of the prosecution has been closed and also of the order dtd. 14/6/2016 (Annexure P-5) rejecting/dismissing the application as moved by him under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C for his own re-examination as well as for summoning the eye-witnesses named Naveen Kumar and Narinder Kumar as prosecution witnesses and he has further prayed for issuing the appropriate direction to the trial Court to afford one effective opportunity to him and the above-said witnesses to appear and beexamined as the prosecution witnesses.

(2.) Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts, culminating in the filing of the instant petition, are that a criminal case was registered against respondents No.2 to 4 at Police Station Shambhu, Patiala, vide FIR No.90 dtd. 16/9/2011 under Ss. 323, 341, 506 read with Sec. 34 IPC, at the instance of the petitioner. After presentation of the Challan and framing of the charges, the prosecution witnesses were summoned by the trial Court and the petitioner himself stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and was so examined. He also made a statement for giving up both the above-named eye-witnesses. However, on 1/6/2016, he moved an application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C with a prayer for his own re-examination and for summoning both the above-said prosecution witnesses, while averring that he had made depositions and had given up the afore-named witnesses under threat at the hands of accused-respondents No.2 to 4. Vide the impugned order Annexure P-5, the above-said application was dismissed.

(3.) However, thereafter, the summons were issued to both the above-named witnesses who appeared in the Court on 20/7/2016 but vide the impugned order Anneuxre P-7, the trial Court closed the evidence of the prosecution on that day without examining them. Then, the petitioner moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for seeking the transfer of the above-said case to some other Court which was allowed.