SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, against respondent State of Punjab for quashing the order dated 30.08.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning witnesses, was dismissed.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

(3.) From the record, 1 find that during the pendency of the trial in case FIR No.182 dated 26.11.2013 under Sections 306 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Division No.2, Jalandhar, an application was filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning additional witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant argued that FIR was got registered by the complainant, who is father of deceased Rohit Kapila. Rohit Kapila used to work in the shop of complainant. On 25.11.2013, at about 1.00 P.M., Rohit told the complainant that he was going to Jalandhar, however, he did not disclose as to where he was going. At about 6.00 P.M., Varun Takiar accused gave a telephonic call to the complainant and informed that. Rohit Kapila was serious and was admitted in Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. After about 10 minutes Varun Takiar again called the complainant and told him that as per Civil Hospital, Rohit Kapila cannot be saved, so they are taking him to Oxford Hospital, Jalandhar. After about 15 minutes, again a telephonic call was received from Varun Takiar that Rohit Kapila has died. It is further argued that Rohit Kapila was having love affair with one Surbhi, who is close relative of Sunita Takiar. As the accused are influential persons, thus the investigation has not been properly conducted by the police. A press coherence was called by the complainant and his family members as they were not satisfied with the investigation. Even a news was published on 18.11.2014. Thereafter, complainant received a telephonic call from Dinesh Kumar and Lalit Kumar, who informed him as to their having seen the entire incident and they were eye witnesses to the occurrence. Therefore, the petitioner wants to summon both these persons as witnesses.