OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition, at the instance of complainant in FIR No. 160 dated 11.6.2006 under Sections 148/149/323/324/341/506/325 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), is directed against the order dated 24.7.2014 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hansi, whereby prosecution evidence was closed by the court order.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, reply by way of affidavit dated 18.11.2014 was filed on behalf of the respondent-State, whereas the private respondent filed their separate reply.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the relevant zimni orders reproduced in the petition, submits that learned trial court misdirected itself, while passing the impugned order. He further submits that when the prosecution witnesses, who were the official witnesses, were not coming forward for getting their statements recorded, learned trial court, vide order dated 17.7.2014 issued nonbailable warrants against the remaining unexamined PWs. However, prosecution witnesses still did not appear before the learned trial court, on the next date of hearing. He next contended that in such a situation, learned trial court ought to have secured presence of the remaining unexamined PWs, in stead of passing the impugned order.