JUDGMENT Mr. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.: - Prayer in this petition is for quashing the order dated 22.08.2012 (Annexure P-1) whereby the learned trial court closed the evidence of the prosecution and the order dated 07.09.2012 (Annexure P-3) vide which the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to allow the prosecution to lead additional evidence was dismissed. 2. At the behest of Manjeet Singh, FIR No. 244 dated 06.10.2005, under Sections 148, 323, 325 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Kharar, against Roop Singh, Balwinder Singh, Jagtar Singh and Harwinder Singh. The charges were framed on 24.08.2006, thereafter, the case was posted for recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. After affording several opportunities to the prosecution, the learned trial court granted last opportunity to it to conclude its evidence but even on availing of the last opportunity, the evidence of the prosecution was not concluded, therefore, special last opportunities were granted to the prosecution but it failed to conclude its entire evidence. 3. Vide order dated 22.08.2002, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar, closed the evidence of the prosecution by order and, thereafter, the case was adjourned to 27.08.2012 for recording statement of the accused in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner moved an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for leading additional evidence but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 07.09.2012. Both the orders dated 22.8.2012 whereby the prosecution evidence was closed and the order dated 07.09.2012 whereby the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed are under challenge before this court. 4. Heard. 5. In this case, the occurrence took place in the year 2005. Numerous opportunities were afforded to the prosecution to lead the evidence but it could not complete the same, therefore, the learned trial court afforded last opportunity to the prosecution to complete its entire evidence but still the prosecution failed to complete the same. Even after availing of the special last opportunity, the prosecution could not complete its entire evidence, therefore, vide order dated 22.08.2012, the learned trial court closed its evidence by court order. The petitioner, who is father of the complainant, filed an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for leading additional evidence. Even after availing of the special last opportunity, the prosecution could not complete its entire evidence, therefore, vide order dated 22.08.2012, the learned trial court closed its evidence by court order. The petitioner, who is father of the complainant, filed an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for leading additional evidence. Since the prosecution had already availed numerous opportunities for concluding its evidence, therefore, the learned trial court had rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner to allow him to lead additional evidence. 6. There is no infirmity, illegality or impropriety in the orders dated 22.08.2012 and 07.09.2012 passed by the learned trial court. 7. Resultantly, the present petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.