JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. The petitioner lodged an FIR on 23.10.2015, at Police Station Mallital, District Nainital, under Sections 341, 323 and 506 of IPC. Based on which, Case Crime No. 57 of 2015 was lodged. It appears that the police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet and proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 18 of 2016, State vs. Amardeep Mann and Others were instituted, in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Nainital (for short “the case”). In the case, applications under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) were filed, which were rejected. The history of these applications is as hereunder:

(i) Initially, the application under Section 311 of the Code was filed by the prosecution, which was rejected vide order dated 15.01.2020.

(ii) The order dated 15.01.2020, passed in the case was unsuccessfully challenged by the State, in Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2020, State vs. Amardeep Maan and Others.

(iii) In between the petitioner sought permission to intervene in the prosecution. He moved an application under Section 302 of the Code. Thereafter, he moved another application under Section 311 of the Code, which was rejected by the order dated 04.12.2021.

2. Initially, the petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 04.12.2021, passed in the case, but subsequently by way of amendment, the petitioner has also sought quashing of the order dated 15.01.2020, and order dated 18.02.2020, passed in Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2020, State vs. Amardeep Mann and Others by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Facts in little detail necessary to appreciate the controversy are as follows.

5. According to FIR lodged by the petitioner, on 23.10.2015, at about 9.30 PM, he was assaulted mercilessly by the private respondents. He sustained injuries. On the same day, he was medically examined at B.D. Pandey Hospital, Nainital by PW-2 Dr. B.S. Dugtal. According to the petitioner, on 24.10.2015, he was further examined by ENT expert and his x-ray was done. The x-ray report was given on 27.10.2015 by PW-3 Dr. R.K. Verma. PW-2 Dr. B.S. Dugtal was examined in the case on 21.12.2016, and PW-3 Dr. R.K. Verma was examined in the case on 13.12.2017. During the pendency of the trial, initially, the State moved an application under Section 311 of the Code, so that radiologist may be re-examined. It was so requested, because on the x-ray report given by PW-3 Dr. R.K. Verma, which is Ex-A5, there were two dates on the column of date, namely, 24.10.2015 and 27.10.2015. Initially, the application was rejected on 15.01.2020 and revision against it was also dismissed.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the private respondents have already been examined under Section 313 of the Code. It is at this stage, the petitioner, who is the informant/victim, moved another application under Section 311 of the Code. It has also been rejected on 04.12.2020. All these are impugned.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the x-ray report Ex-A5 prepared by PW-3 Dr. R.K. Verma, the right hand side, on top of it, there are two dates i.e. 24.10.2015 and 27.10.2015. PW-3 Dr. R.K. Verma was asked as to why there are two dates on the x-ray report given by him? But, he could not explain it. Based on the x-ray report Ex-A5, a supplementary report was given by PW-2 Dr. B.S. Dugtal. He was also asked about the two dates, mentioned in the x-ray report Ex-A5, but, he could not explain it. Therefore, it is argued that in order to clarify the two dates, as recorded in Ex- A5, the application filed by the petitioner ought to have been allowed, but the court below committed an error in rejecting this application.

8. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents would submit that allowing or not allowing the application under Section 313 of the Code is totally within the discretion of the Magistrate; such