JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. - The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through hybrid mode [physical and virtual hearing].

1. By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter, 'CrPC'], the petitioner assails an order dated 04.12.2021, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (South East), Saket Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter, 'MM'] in proceedings arising out of FIR No. 34/2002, dated 04.02.2002, registered at Police Station Greater Kailash-I, under Sections 341, 323, 149 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter, 'IPC'].

2. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein are the accused in the subject FIR, which was registered at the instance of the petitioner herein. By the impugned order dated 04.12.2021, the MM has rejected an application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the CrPC for summoning of two additional witnesses on behalf of the prosecution.

Facts

3. The petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were neighbours. The petitioner is a doctor by profession. The FIR concerns an incident which is alleged to have taken place on 30.01.2002 at 9:50 aM. The petitioner claims to have gone to the residence of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 with a process server to serve summons upon them in connection with a writ petition filed by the petitioner's mother, Mrs. Roma Dutta before this Court. The petitioner further states that the process server informed him that the addressees have refused service of summons, following which he was slapped and kicked by the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and some other persons. His clothes and spectacles were damaged. He was thereafter dragged inside the premises of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and beaten up. He was also later pushed onto the driveway. The petitioner made further complaints in this regard to the police authorities on 30.01.2002, 04.02.2002 and 04.03.2002.

4. a cross-FIR [FIR No. 33/2002], dated 04.02.2002, was also registered in respect of the same incident against the petitioner under Sections 415 and 427 of the IPC, at the instance of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein.

5. Chargesheets have been filed in both the FIRs, and trials are in progress. In the course of the trial arising out of FIR No. 33/2002, the petitioner examined defence witness, including DW-2- Hasib akhtar [hereinafter, 'akhtar'] and DW-3-Bijender Chauhan [hereinafter, 'Chauhan']. Both of them were petitioner's assistants, when the alleged incident took place. They deposed as to their presence at the venue, when the incident in question took place, and gave details thereof in their respective testimonies.

6. In FIR No. 34/2002, the petitioner, his wife [Mrs. Parswati Dutta], and his daughter [Ms. Esha Dutta], have been examined as prosecution witnesses [PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 respectively]. The petitioner [PW-1], during his examination in chief, on 24.07.2009, deposed that he heard the voice of his wife and two assistants when he was in the premises of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. He named Chauhan and akhtar as the two assistants in question. Mrs. Parswati Dutta [PW-2] deposed on 24.07.2009 that she was informed about the incident by akhtar and Chauhan. Ms. Esha Dutta [PW-3] has also deposed on 28.11.2017 to the effect that akhtar and Chauhan went alongwith her mother to the alleged venue of the incident to help her father.

7. During the course of trial, the petitioner moved an application under Section 311 of the CrPC, dated 24.09.2016, in proceedings arising out of FIR No. 34/2002, seeking summoning of three additional prosecution witnesses, namely, his mother Mrs. Roma Dutta, Chauhan and akhtar. In support of the application, as far as akhtar and Chauhan were concerned, the petitioner contended that the Investigating Officer [hereinafter, 'IO'] had not made them witnesses in the chargesheet deliberately, although they were eye witnesses to the incident in question. The application was rejected by an order dated 30.11.2016, wherein the MM noted that the applic