Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1289 (PNJ)

Ved Parkash v. State of Haryana

2012-09-25

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - The contour of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, in the wake of complaint of petitioner-complainant-Ved Parkash son of Ram Bhagat, a criminal case was registered against the private respondents-accused, by way of FIR No.47 dated 22.04.2007, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Salhawas, District Jhajjar. 2. During the course of trial, when the Presiding Officer (Ms.Sampreet Kaur) was on medical leave, then the case was placed before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jhajjar(Ms.Rachna Gupta) on 17.01.2012. She abruptly closed the evidence of the prosecution by virtue of impugned order dated 17.01.2012(Annexure P-1), which in substance is as under:- “File is put to before me as Ms.Sampreet Kaur, Ld.C.J.(J.D.)-cum-JMIC, Jhajjar is on medical leave. No PW is present. The present case has been short listed as special evidence case in furtherance of the direction of Hon’ble Administrative Judge. Moreover, perusal of the case file reveals that charge in this case has already been framed on 4.10.2007 and prosecution has already availed several effective opportunities. Now, there is no justification in adjourning the case time and again for the same purpose. Hence, further adjournment as prayed for by prosecution is hereby declined and prosecution evidence is closed by court order. Now to came up on 31.1.2012 for recording the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.” 3. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioner-complainant, was dismissed as well by the Revisional Court, by means of impugned order dated 28.08.2012(Annexure P-6). 4. The petitioner-complainant still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, to challenge the impugned orders (Annexures P-1 and P-6), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. At the very outset, in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I hereby exempt the issuance of notices to the respondents, in order to save them from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the case, particularly when they can well be compensated with adequate costs in this regard. 6. At the very outset, in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I hereby exempt the issuance of notices to the respondents, in order to save them from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the case, particularly when they can well be compensated with adequate costs in this regard. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 7. As is evident from the record that, the petitioner-complainant is a victim in this case, who was claimed to have suffered injuries at the hands of the private respondents-accused. The trial Court closed the evidence of the prosecution vide impugned order(Annexure P-1). As is clear from the impugned orders that the main grounds which appear to have been weighed with the trial Court, to close the evidence of the prosecution was that “the present case has been short-listed as a special evidence case in furtherance of the direction of Hon’ble Administrative Judge and since, the prosecution has already availed several effective opportunities, so, no justification for further adjournment of the case is made out.” 8. True it may be, but here to me, the trial Court has slipped into a deep legal error in this respect. The mere fact that the case was short-listed as a special evidence case in furtherance of the directions of the Hon’ble Administrative Judge, ipso facto is not a cogent ground, much less legal, to abruptly close the evidence of the prosecution, particularly when learned counsel for the petitioner has contended with some amount of vehemence that on many occasions, the case was adjourned at the request of private respondents-accused. 9. Moreover, the perusal of the medical record(Annexure P-2) and (Annexure P-3)(colly.) would reveal that the petitioner-complainant was suffering from Liver and Heart disease. In this manner, the trial Court did not record cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Taking into consideration the pointed facts and special circumstances, the trial Magistrate ought to have granted one more opportunity to the prosecution, to conclude its evidence, specially when the private respondents-accused can well be compensated with adequate costs in this context. The same very mistake was repeated by the Revisional Court as well. Taking into consideration the pointed facts and special circumstances, the trial Magistrate ought to have granted one more opportunity to the prosecution, to conclude its evidence, specially when the private respondents-accused can well be compensated with adequate costs in this context. The same very mistake was repeated by the Revisional Court as well. Above all, the production of entire evidence is essential and is the legal requirement of fair trial. Therefore, to my mind, the Courts below have committed the illegality and material procedural irregularity and the impugned orders(Annexures P-1 and P-6) cannot legally be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, the instant petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned orders(Annexures P-1 and P-6) are hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide one more effective opportunity to the prosecution, to conclude its evidence. The prosecution is further directed to take every endeavour and effective steps, to conclude the evidence. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as costs, to be paid by the petitioner-complainant to the private respondents-accused. Needless to mention that, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the respondents.