Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. Parmod Kumar Grover, petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.8.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, whereby he had allowed the prayer of the prosecution to re-summon four Medical Officers, who were earlier given up by the prosecution on the plea of having been won over by the accused. 2. In order to decide the present petition, a few facts need to be noticed. Sint. Parveen Grover (now deceased) was married to Parmod Kumar Grover. Out of this wedlock two children were born. After she had conceived third time, she was admitted in Gulati Nursing Home on 24.4.1994 at 8.30 a.m. Dr. Samran Singh, respondent No. 2 and Dr. Mavinder Kaur, respondent No. 3 performed caesarean operation after giving spinal anaesthesia despite the fact that they were not specialists in spinal anaesthesia. She went into shock and ultimately died on the table of Nursing Home of respondents No. 2 and 3. It is stated that respondent No. 2 had charged heavily for conducting the caesarean operation on the deceased. In order to avoid criminal liability, both the above named doctors did manipulation in the bed-head ticket of the patient. Piare Lal, father of the petitioner lodged report bearing FIR No.152 dated 31.5.1994 under Sections 304, 316, 384, 465, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station City Dabwali. The trial Court initially framed charge under Section 304-A I.P.C. against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for causing death of Smt. Parveen Grover. A Criminal Revision No. 225 of 2001 was filed by the petitioner against the order of framing of charge with the plea that the trial Court had not framed charges under Sections 201, 315, 384, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C which is pending in this Court. On 10.7.2002, the case was fixed for evidence before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, wherein the petitioner moved application that Dr. Sukhbir Singh, Dr. D.P. Mangla, Dr. Harbhajah Singh and Dr. Subita Ajmani had been won over by the accused and prayer was made by him for giving up these witnesses, which was forwarded by the police Prosecutor, Incharge of the case. On the basis of this application, Tilak Raj, Public Prosecutor made a statement that Smt. Jeet, Sita Devi, Ramesh Chander Madhu Ram, Dr. Sukhbir Singh, Dr. D.P. Mangla, Dr. Harbhajan Singh and Dr. On the basis of this application, Tilak Raj, Public Prosecutor made a statement that Smt. Jeet, Sita Devi, Ramesh Chander Madhu Ram, Dr. Sukhbir Singh, Dr. D.P. Mangla, Dr. Harbhajan Singh and Dr. Subita Ajmani are given up as unnecessary witnesses. On 18.8.2002, when the case came up for hearing before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, an application was moved by the Public Prosecutor for summoning Dr. D.P. Mangla, Dr. Harbhajan Singh, Dr. Sukhbir Singh and Dr. Subita Ajmaini as these witnesses had been given up due to in advertence and the examination of these witnesses was essential for the just decision of the case, which application was allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa on 10.8.2002. Aggrieved by the said order the Petitioner, husband of Parveen Grover, deceased has filed this petition seeking quashing of the order passed primarily on the ground that after these witnesses had been given up, they could not have been ordered to be summoned also because his counsel has not heard before passing the order. 3. I heard counsel for the petitioner and the State counsel at length. 4. Counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashing of the impugned order referred to the application dated 10.7.2002 , wherein Parmod Kumar Grover, petitioner had made a prayer for giving up Dr. Sukhbir Singh, Dr. D.P. Mangla, Dr. Harbhajan singh and Dr. Subita Ajmani as unnecessary witnesses. It was also stated in the application that Dr. Sukhbir Singh, Dr. D.P. Mangla, Dr. Harbhajan Singh and Dr. Subita Ajmani were not supporting the prosecution version having been won over by the accused and for that reason they be allowed to be given up. This application, according to the petitioner, was also supported by the Public Prosecutor, who had given statement on 10.7.2002 and it was thereafter these witnesses were allowed to be given up by the Court. Having done so, the Public Prosecutor had no basis to move another application dated 10.8.2002 seeking permission of the Court to summon the above mentioned witnesses on the ground that they had been given up inadvertently. Having done so, the Public Prosecutor had no basis to move another application dated 10.8.2002 seeking permission of the Court to summon the above mentioned witnesses on the ground that they had been given up inadvertently. According to the counsel for the petitioner, there was no material to support the stand taken in the application nor any detailed reasons were given in the application moved by the Public Prosecutor and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, despite the opposition of the petitioner, allowed the witnesses to be summoned which was wholly unjustified. In support of the stand taken reliance was placed by him on the observations made in reliance was placed by him on the observations made in Masalti etc. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 1965 (1) Cr. L.J. 226, wherein it was observed as under "It is not unknown that where serious offences like the present are committed and a large number of accused persons are tried , attempts are made either to terrorise or win over prosecution witnesses , and if the prosecutor honestly and bona fide believes that some of his witnesses have been won over, it would be unreasonable to insist that he must tender such witnesses before the court. It is undoubtedly the duty of the prosecution to lay before the Court all material evidence available to it which is necessary for unfolding its case; but it would be unsound to lay down as a general rule that every witness must be examined even though his evidence may not be very material or even if it is known that he has been won over or terrorised. In such a case, it is always open to the defence to examine such witnesses as their witnesses and the Court can also call such witnesses in the box in the interest of justice under S. 540, Cr.P.C. As we have already seen, the defence did not examine these witnesses and the Court, after due deliberation refused to exercise its power under S. 540 Cr.P.C." This case was also relied upon by the Apex Court in subsequent case Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 (4) RCR (Cr.) 167 : [2000(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 1 (SC)]. On the strength of the observations made in the above mentioned cases, counsel for the petitioner contended that the Chief Judicial Magistrate instead of ordering these witnesses to be summoned should have allowed these witnesses to be examined as defence witnesses if so desirable by the accused. 5 The observations made in the above mentioned case were entirely in a different context because the grievance was made on behalf of the accused that some of the witnesses had not been examined and given up on the plea that they had been won over by accused. Rather, a plea was raised that non-examination of these witnesses should not be ignored and the evidence of the examined witnesses should not be accepted. 6. The question agitated before me has been decided by this Court in Shamsher Singh v. State of Haryana 1999 (2) RCR (Cr.) 100 : [1999(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 145 (Pb. & Hry.)], wherein Shamsher Singh, accused had faced prosecution under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. After the prosecution had given its evidence, the case was posted for defence witnesses. It is at this stage a prayer was made on behalf of the prosecution to examine ASI and DSP, who were witnesses of recovery but had been left out inadvertently. The trial Court allowed the examination of said witnesses for just decision of the case. Taking notice of the ambit of section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the order of the trial Court was upheld. 7. In the present case, the cause of justice would be advanced if the examination of the above mentioned doctors is allowed during the trial of the case. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition. Consequently, the same is dismissed.