IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 22.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.02.2025 Gulzar Hasan ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. K.S. Kahlon, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.S. Thind, DAG Punjab for respondent No. 1 Ms. Jasneet Mehta, Advocate for respondent No. 2 *****

KIRTI SINGH, J.

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked against the impugned order dated 06.02.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby the applications moved by the revisionist-petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C, dated 12.12.2019 and 04.01.2020 were dismissed.

2. The factual matrix as culled out from the instant petition is that the minor sister of the petitioner was enticed away by the accused-respondent No.2, who was already married and with children, on the false pretext of marriage. An FIR dated 08.02.2018 was lodged and meanwhile, a writ of habeas corpus was preferred and the custody of the prosecutrix was restored to her parents. However, during the pendency of the said petition, she was enticed away again and had to be recovered by constituting a special team and thereafter, her custody was finally handed over to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2019. Meanwhile, pursuant to the investigation in the afore-referred FIR, the statement of the prosecutrix was got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 01.05.2018, wherein she leveled specific allegations against the petitioner. However, when she was produced before the trial Court for her deposition as a prosecution witness, she resiled from her statement and turned hostile. Thereafter, an application for her re- examination, as also one for production of certain documents as additional evidence, were moved, which were dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 06.02.2020, and aggrieved from the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the applications filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. were erroneously dismissed by the trial Court. It is contended that the prosecutrix is a special child, who out of fear and pressure from the accused, turned hostile and therefore, it is vital to re- examine her with the help of documents being sought for in the second application, including copy of the memo of the protection petition filed by the accused- respondent and the prosecutrix. Hence, by dismissing the said applications, the trial Court has gravely prejudiced the prosecution case and thus the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the grounds on which re-examination of the prosecutrix was sought were ill founded since she, who was also cross-examined at length by the public prosecutor during her testimony as a witness, had turned hostile. Furthermore, she could have been confronted with the concerned documents at that stage, but the same was not done and now when the trial is at the fag end, the same is being sought to be delayed by way of filing such applications.

5. Learned State counsel, inter alia, confirms the factum that even after being cross-examined at length, the prosecutrix chose to resile from her statement made to the police. He further submits that the trial is at the stage of defence evidence and final arguments.

6. Having heard the contentions and perused the record, it comes out that the petitioner wanted the re-examination of his sister, the prosecutrix, with the help of certain documents, also sought for in the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the learned trial Court.

7. Before adjudicating the matter, it would be apposite to refer to the provision under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which reads thus:

“311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon