Mrs. Anita Chaudhry, J.: - The petitioner assails the order dated 09.03.2015, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon in complaint case no.599-A/2011 dated 31.10.2011 filed under Sections 376, 403, 417 IPC. The petitioner/complainant had filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to examine some additional witnesses and re-examine three witnesses. The trial Court had dismissed the application.

2. It would be necessary to first notice the facts. The petitioner claims that she met Aman Nugyal in Mumbai in 2006. Aman was married. Aman was having problems with his wife and he shared it with the petitioner. In 2008 Aman told the petitioner that his wife was approaching the Court and was seeking divorce from him. After a year Aman contacted the petitioner through Facebook and proposed marriage. The petitioner refused and asked him to get divorce first and only then she could consider the proposal. The accused met the petitioner in Delhi in April, 2010 and informed that he was divorced in March, 2010. The accused succeeded in pursuing the petitioner and she agreed for marriage. In May, 2010 the accused disclosed that the divorce proceedings were still going on and the second motion was to take place in November, 2010 and apologized for lying. The accused assured that he would marry the petitioner. In August, 2010 the petitioner and the accused shared a live-in relationship and started living in a apartment in Gurgaon. The accused also introduced his sister and his parents. During this relationship, the petitioner found that he was alcoholic, short tempered and was abusive. In November, 2010 he promised to arrange sufficient finances so they could marry in December, 2010. The mother of the petitioner came to know about their relationship and objected. In the presence of the petitioner’s mother, the accused applied vermilion (Sindur) on her forehead. The relationship continued and the accused maintained physical relationship and assured that he would marry her. In August, 2011 he left for Africa. On the next day, his father asked the petitioner to vacate the house. The petitioner learnt that the accused had gone to Africa with his first wife and child. It then dawned on her that she was a victim of a well calculated plan. A complaint was given to the police in September, 2011. No action was taken and thereafter, a complaint was filed.

3. The Magistrate called for the report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, preliminary evidence was recorded. The case was committed and charge was framed. The prosecution examined its entire evidence and closed the evidence on 27.02.2015. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in March, 2015. An application was moved thereafter, under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The complainant wanted to re-examine three witnesses and additionally examine the MHC who had submitted the report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as well as the SHO, P.S. Sadar regarding the inquiry made by him from Colonel Kamal Kumar. Besides these the complainant wanted to examine the Security Supervisor of AWHO Society, the State Manager of the Housing Society and the Superintendent PIO-cum-DCP, Head Quarters. The trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 09.03.2015.

4. The counsel for the petitioner contends that PW5 was examined on 27.02.2015 and on the same day the complainant had filed an application for examination of PW2 Kartik Sinha, Ex-President of RWA with regard to the facts which had appeared in the crossexamination and dis-appearance of the evidence from record of the Society. It was urged that PW2 had filed a complaint to the Society’s Manager on which PW2 had directed the Security Supervisor to investigate and the Security Supervisor had gone to the flat and on confirmation from the neighbours, he found the complaint of the petitioner to be true and that the petitioner was residing with respondent no.2 for the last one year and therefore, the examination of Sube