SATISH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') for raising a challenge to the order dtd. 14/7/2017 (Annexure P-6) passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, whereby the application under Sec. 246(6) and 311 CrPC filed by respondent No.2- complainant has been allowed in criminal complaint No.526 dtd. 19/11/2012 titled as 'Sunil Vs. Rati Ram and Others'.

(2.) Before adverting to the merits of the case, bare facts as are necessary to be taken into consideration are that respondent No.2-complainant filed an application under Sec. 156(3) CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. The said application was treated as a complaint case under Ss. 323, 324, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). The respondent No.2-complainant led preliminary evidence examining three witnesses including himself. Thereafter, the preliminary evidence was closed on behalf of respondent No.2-complaint on 6/12/2008. The petitioner along with other co-accused was summoned to face trial for commission of the said offences vide order dtd. 28/8/2010 (Annexure P-2). Subsequently, pre- charge evidence was led by respondent No.2-complainant wherein the same 3 witnesses were examined again and upon consideration thereof charge under Sec. 323 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC and Sec. 506 IPC was framed vide order dtd. 3/1/2014 (Annexure P-3). The counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant made a statement before the trial Court that the evidence led by him at the stage of pre-charge evidence may be read as part of the evidence after-charge. Counsel for the petitioner also made a statement that the cross examination already held at the pre-charge stage may also be considered to have been conducted as after-charge evidence. Resultantly, the evidence of the complainant was closed by the trial Court. Respondent No.2-complainant thereafter preferred an application under Sec. 246(6) CrPC read with Sec. 311 CrPC for examining additional evidence on the ground that the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has not been followed and that the complainant has a right to examine the remaining witnesses under Sec. 246(6) CrPC. The witnesses that the respondent No.2-complainant sought to examine are:-

(3.) The aforesaid application was allowed by the trial Court vide order dtd. 14/7/2017 (Annexure P-6) and the said order is assailed in the present petition to have been passed illegally and without appreciating the statutory provision as well as the prejudice which is occasioned to the petitioner-accused.