LEKH RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lekh Raj, Ashok Kumar and Ms. Bishni Devi alias Krishan, Have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the order dated 19-10-1996 passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, who allowed the application of the complainant under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ordered for the ex-examination of Har Bhagwan, Pokhar Dass and Parma Nand, prosecution witnesses whose statements were recorded by the trial Magistrate.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that sister of Har Bhagwan, respondent No. 2 was married with Ashok Kumar, petitioner No. 2 and a criminal complaint was filed against the present petitioners along with others for the offences under Sections 406 and 498 read with Section 109, I.P.C. Proceedings vis-a-vis some of the accused were quashed and after the said quashment, the prosecution continued against the present three petitioners. Vide orders dated 12-2-1990, the proceedings against three accused namely Renu, Karam Chand and Kamlesh were quashed for the offences under Section 498-A read wiith 109, IPC but Section 406, IPC was allowed to stand. Charges in this case were framed against the accused on 7-1-1991 and thereafter the evidence of the prosecution was recorded. On 2-9-1996, application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. was moved by Harbhagwan Singh respondent No. 2 alleging that his sister was married to Ashok Kumar on 4-6-1979 and that the accused persons treated her sister with utmost cruelty and she was turned from the house of her in laws. Lajwanti was turned out from her matrimonial home and accused persons retained dowry articles in spite of the facts that the complainant asked the return of dowry articles. It is also stated by the complainant that his sister Lajwanti died in the year 1992 and when the evidence of the prosecution was closed , the relatives of the complainant were under shock and grief on account of the death of Lajwanti and for that reason some of the prosecution witnesses could not give their evidence in detail. As all these articles of stridhan are lying with the accused, and they are misappropriating the same, the complainant wants to re-examine himself, Pokhar Dass and Parma Nand witneses whose statements were earlier recorded. Rather re-examination of these witnesses is very essential to the just decision of this case.

(3.) This application was opposed by the accused who filed the reply dated 18-9-1996 and it was pleaded that the statement of the complainant was recorded on 3-3-1994 after about 2 years of the death of his sister, while the statements of Parma Nand and Pokhar Dass were recorded on 2-2-1991. Since statements of these witnesses were recorded much later to the death of Lajwanti, therefore, it cannot be said that these witnesses were under shock. The application is lacking in particulars as the complainant had not stated in his application how the witnesses earlier could not give the desired statements. By filing the application, the complainant wants a fresh trial against the accused who are already facing the trial since 1988. In short the defence of the accused before the trial Court was that the prosecution cannot be permitted to fill the lacunae in the case.