The court emphasized the importance of bona fide applications for re-examination and summoning of witnesses, citing legal precedents to support its decision.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi I. Mehta. J. - By way of the present petition, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for seeking the quashing of the order dated 20.07.2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, whereby the evidence of the prosecution has been closed and also of the order dated 14.06.2016 (Annexure P-5) rejecting/dismissing the application as moved by him under Section 311 Cr.P.C for his own re-examination as well as for summoning the eye-witnesses named Naveen Kumar and Narinder Kumar as prosecution witnesses and he has further prayed for issuing the appropriate direction to the trial Court to afford one effective opportunity to him and the above-said witnesses to appear and beexamined as the prosecution witnesses.

2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts, culminating in the filing of the instant petition, are that a criminal case was registered against respondents No.2 to 4 at Police Station Shambhu, Patiala, vide FIR No.90 dated 16.09.2011 under Sections 323, 341, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, at the instance of the petitioner. After presentation of the Challan and framing of the charges, the prosecution witnesses were summoned by the trial Court and the petitioner himself stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and was so examined. He also made a statement for giving up both the above-named eye-witnesses. However, on 01.06.2016, he moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C with a prayer for his own re-examination and for summoning both the above-said prosecution witnesses, while averring that he had made depositions and had given up the afore-named witnesses under threat at the hands of accused-respondents No.2 to 4. Vide the impugned order Annexure P-5, the above-said application was dismissed.

3. However, thereafter, the summons were issued to both the above-named witnesses who appeared in the Court on 20.07.2016 but vide the impugned order Anneuxre P-7, the trial Court closed the evidence of the prosecution on that day without examining them. Then, the petitioner moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for seeking the transfer of the above-said case to some other Court which was allowed.

4. Respondent No.l-State has filed its short Reply by way of the affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ghanour whereas respondentsNo.2 to 4-accused have preferred to file their joint Reply to this petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 in this petition and have also gone through the file thoroughly.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had moved the said application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for his own re-examination and also for summoning and examining both the said persons as the prosecution witnesses in this case because on the earlier occasion, he had made depositions as PW-1 and had given up the said eyewitnesses under the threat from respondents No.2 to 4-accused whereas his own re-examination as well as the testimonies of both the afore-named witnesses, being the eye-witnesses to the entire occurrence, are relevant and necessary for the proper decision of the case and therefore, the impugned order Annexure P-5 as passed qua the dismissal of the afore-mentioned application, is liable to be set aside. He has further contended that the impugned order Annexure P-7 as passed on 20.07.2016 for closing the prosecution evidence also deserves to be quashed because both the said witnesses were present in the Court on that day but were not examined. To buttress his contentions, he has placed reliance upon Sanjeev Nanda vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 183 (Delhi HO, Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan & Others vs. Union Territory ofDadra and Nagar Havell Silvassa & Another 2003(4) RCR (Criminal) 168 (Bombay HO and Paul Singh vs. State of Haryana 2014(11) RCR(Criminal) 1798 (P&H)

7. Per-contra, learned State counsel