MISS RAMESHWARI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C lays challenge to order dtd. 25/8/2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, passed in Cr. Revision No.08/2018, titled Miss Rameshwari Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, affirming the order dtd. 3/5/2018, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, H.P. in Police Challan No.108-1/2011, titled State vs. Rameshwari, whereby, an application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C., having been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'accused'), seeking therein permission to examine three witnesses in defence, came to be dismissed.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that FIR No. 135 of 2010, came to be instituted against the accused Rameshwari Sharma, who is Advocate by profession, at the behest of complainant namely Miss Rekha Thakur, who alleged that on 21/12/2010, Advocate named hereinabove, gave her beatings. Record reveals that on the date of alleged incident, complainant Rekha Thakur, had come in Court premises at Kullu in connection with bail petition having been filed by her in case FIR No.348/2010, dtd. 21/12/2010, lodged at the behest of Kiran Gautam, w/o Bhuvneshwer Gautam, who otherwise happens to be sister of accused, under Ss. 341, 323 and 506 IPC. When above-named Rekha Thakur, was ordered to be enlarged on bail by the court below in FIR No.348/2010, some altercation took place inter se her and accused herein and allegedly accused gave beatings to her and as such, FIR No. 135 of 2010 came to be lodged against the accused herein. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the case. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of petitioner/accused, being accused in FIR No. 135 of 2010, was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C on 5/8/2016, whereafter, repeatedly matter came to be adjourned at the request of accused for recording the statements of witnesses in defence. However, fact remains that accused, failed to produce defence witnesses and as such, closed her defence evidence on 26/4/2017. After nine months of passing of order dtd. 26/4/2017, whereby, defence of accused was closed, she filed an application in the month of January, 2018, under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C., seeking therein permission of Court to examine three witnesses in her defence. In application, accused claimed that witnesses proposed to be examined by her are essential for just decision of case. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, having taken note of the fact that despite repeated opportunities, accused failed to lead evidence in defence, dismissed the application vide order dtd. 3/5/2018. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, accused preferred Criminal Revision Petition before Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P., which was also dismissed vide order dtd. 25/8/2018. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to allow her application filed under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C, after setting aside the aforesaid orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu.

(3.) Mr. Chander Shekhar, learned counsel, representing the accused, while referring to provision contained under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C, contends that Court enjoys vast powers to summon/re-examine or recall a witness, at any stage of proceedings, especially, when same is necessary for proper adjudication of the case. While referring to the statements made by prosecution witnesses, especially, complainant Rekha Thakur, Mr. Sharma, submits that once, it has specifically come in her statement that at the time of alleged incident, many lawyers were present on the spot, prayer made in the application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C having been filed by the accused seeking therein permission to examine three Advocates and one Duty Constable, ought to have been allowed by the court below, enabling it to arrive at a just decision. In support of his submissions, learned counsel representing the accused, also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court dtd. 16/3/2018, passed in Cr. Revision No.313 of 2017, titled Sunder Lal vs. Urmila Thakur.