IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 27.01.2025 Monika Kumari ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:-. Mr. Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner *****

KIRTI SINGH, J.(Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 for quashing of order dated 25.7.2024 (P-2) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in FIR No.292 dated 25.10.2022 registered under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 120-B IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana, whereby cross examination of PW1 to PW4 has been treated as Nil and order dated 25.10.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide which application filed by petitioner for recalling PW1 to PW4 for cross examination has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforementioned FIR was registered against co-accused Akshay. Later on offences under Sections 366-A, 376, 120-B IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act were added in the FIR. He further submits that thereafter the petitioner was nominated as accused in the FIR and he was granted bail and trial of the case commenced. He contends that on

25.07.2024 the case was fixed for cross examination of PW1 to PW4. Counsel for the petitioner partly cross examined PW1 and due to lunch break case was adjourned for continuation of cross-examination post lunch but at that time counsel for the petitioner was busy in some other Court and cross examination of PW1 to PW4 was ordered to be treated as Nil. He further contended that the witnesses PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 are material witnesses of the case, moreover, PW1 is complainant at whose instance the FIR in the present case was lodged and PW2 is prosecturix, PW3 and PW4 are medical officers. As such, material questions are required to be put to the said witnesses so that the truth may come out. Whole fate of the case of prosecution and of the accused depends upon these witnesses materially. Depriving the accused from examining the prosecution witness is fatal and usually results in conviction of the accused, which is not the intention of law. As such, it is in the interest of justice that the said witnesses may kindly be recalled for the purpose of their cross examination. That though it is the spirit of law that process of justice may be speedy and hurried but fairness which is the basic element of justice cannot be buried. Hence, a prayer has been made for recalling the above said witnesses.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record of the case with his able assistance, it transpires that examination in chief of PW-1 complainant was recorded on 02.04.2024 and on that day PW-2 prosecutrix was also partly examined in chief. Thereafter, on 30.05.2024 PW1 Raj Kumari- complainant was partly cross examined by the learned defence counsel and her further cross examination was deferred on request of counsel representing accused Akshay before trial Court. On that day PW2 prosecutrix was also bound down on joint request and case adjourned was 08.07.2024. On 08.07.2024, complainant and prosecutrix were present since morning for the purpose of cross examination, however, despite calling time and again the counsels failed to turn up for cross examination of above said witnesses and in the interest of justice, one last opportunity was granted to learned defence counsels for cross examination of above said witnesses and the case was adjourned to 15.07.2024. On that date, PW3 Dr. Ankush and PW4 Dr. Sandeep Sohi were present through VC and their examination in chief was recorded. Similarly, complainant and prosecutrix were also present. However, none of the witness was cross examined and an adjournment was sought which was strongly objected by prosecutrix and complainant, despite that the case was adjourned for 25.07.2024.

4. On 25.07.2024, remaining examination in chi