AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.

By this petition, the order of the learned trial Court dismissing the application of the present petitioner (complainant) to summon one more witness, i.e. her son, stated to be the owner of one of the stolen articles involved in the case, (a motor-cycle, bearing registration No. PB-02-BG-7499), has been dismissed.

2. The reasoning given by the learned trial Court, firstly, is that the complainant has no locus standi to file the application. Other than that, it has been stated that the complainant was represented by her counsel through out the trial, including when the prosecution evidence was closed on 26.09.2016. Hence, the order further states, that the application was only an attempt to delay the outcome of the trial.

3. Whereas the second part of the reasoning of the trial Court is not wholly without reason, in view of the fact that the trial is stated to have continued for three years, with the petitioner-complainant duly represented by her counsel and the application was moved only after the prosecution evidence had been closed, however, it obviously having been moved immediately after such closure, the application also having been decided within