Nirmal Singh, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout dated 29.3.2001 vide which the evidence of the prosecution has been closed.

2. Shri Baltej Singh Sidhu, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is palpably erroneous. He submitted that the learned Magistrate has closed the evidence by order despite the fact that the witnesses were served. He submitted that once the service was effected upon the witnesses then the learned trial Court should have adopted coercive method for securing the presence of the witnesses but he has no right to close the evidence. He further submitted that the petitioner has not to gain by delaying the trial.

3. On the other hand Shri T.S. Sangha, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and 3 submitted that the charges in this case were framed on 29.7.1999 and, therefore, sufficient opportunities were given to the prosecution. He submitted that the complainant in this case is dealing the proceedings only to harass the respondents. He contended that when the witnesses are not appearing in the Court despite effecti