JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought a direction from this Court to the trial court, Champawat to re-examine P.W.6 – Dr. Surendra Singh Bisht and P.W.12 – Sri Kiran Lal Sah, Investigating Officer, under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2006, State Vs. Prasant Kumar and others. It is further prayed that this Hon’ble court be pleased to stay the further proceedings in S.T. No. 19 of 2006, State Vs. Prasant Kumar and others pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Champawat till the date of re-examination of P.W. 6 and P.W.12. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the State, raised a preliminary objection on the ground that earlier an application moved on behalf of the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for similar relief was dismissed on 24.06.2010 therefore, this second petition is not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that this Court while passing the order dated 24.06.2010, observed the following :- “Apart from this, the application moved on behalf of the accused/petitioners (copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition) shows that it is not specified what questions are left out in cross-examining the witnesses (the questions are not specified).” 5. After the rejection of earlier petition, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners moved a fresh application dated 03.07.2010, before the trial court (Annexure 5 to the petition), wherein specified questions were mentioned. Said application was rejected by the trial court on the same day i.e. 03.07.2010 on the ground that an application under Section 140A was rejected on merit and not only counsel for accused had already cross-examined the witnesses but also evidence of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and that of defence had already been recorded. 6. The order passed by this Court on 24.06.2010, is reproduced as under :- “Shri K.S. Verma, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Shri G.S. Sandhu, G.A. with Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Heard. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for shot Cr.P.C.) the petitioners have sought a direction from this Court to the trial court to allow further examination of P.W.6 Dr. Shri G.S. Sandhu, G.A. with Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Heard. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for shot Cr.P.C.) the petitioners have sought a direction from this Court to the trial court to allow further examination of P.W.6 Dr. Surendra Singh Bisht and P.W.12 Shri Kiran Lal Sah, in sessions trial No. 19 of 2006, State Vs. Prashant Kumar and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 304B and 498A I.P.C., and on punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. From the perusal of the papers on record, it appears that the petitioners were given opportunity to cross-examine the aforesaid witnesses and they have cross-examined the witnesses. It is also pertinent to mention here that after the close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and thereafter, even the defence evidence has been recorded. If the further examination of the prosecution witnesses is allowed unless there are compelling reasons, it would encourage the winning over the witnesses and frustrate the object of the fair criminal trial. Apart from this, the application moved on behalf of the accused/petitioners (copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition) shows that it is not specified what questions are left out in cross-examining the witnesses (the questions are not specified). The trial court has observed that the application has been moved by the accused only to linger the proceedings. In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court rejecting the application 140A in the session’s trial. Therefore, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily.” 7. On perusal of the order passed in the earlier petition, it is clear that the relief sought in the present petition is same and the Court after perusal of the papers on record, declined to interfere with the impugned order, passed by the trial court, rejecting the application 140A in the sessions trial. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court is of the view that the second petition for the same relief as sought in earlier petition, is not maintainable. Therefore, the same is dismissed summarily.