IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :26.08.2025 Navjit Singh @ Navjeet Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Gagan Oberoi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG, Punjab.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

1. Aggrieved of the order dated 30.07.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class-4, Mohali, in a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, the present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023.

2. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he is facing large number of trials and that one of such trial is in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class-4, Mohali, vide FIR No.104 dated 25.05.2017, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner in the above mentioned case the prosecution evidence had already been concluded and after recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the case was fixed for defence evidence. According to petitioner without giving him proper opportunity to lead defence evidence his above mentioned opportunity has been closed by the leaned trial Court. Hence, the present petition.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order whereby the opportunity of petitioner to lead defence evidence has been closed, by the learned trial Court, is perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law. According to learned counsel for the petitioner a valuable right of defence of the petitioner has been curtailed by the learned trial Court, without looking into the facts that it was not the lapse of the petitioner which was responsible for his failure to conclude defence evidence. In this regard it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 27.03.2025, the petitioner had moved an application before the learned trial Court for permission to examine few defence witnesses, and also himself as his own witness.

6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter the jail authorities did not produce the petitioner before the learned trial Court and on 30.07.2025 when the petitioner was produced before the learned trial Court it was already 4.30 P.M. As per learned counsel for the petitioner at 4.30 P.M. it was not possible for the petitioner to examine himself or produce any witness, and therefore, learned trial Court should have adjourn the case. But instead of doing so, the learned trial Court closed the defence evidence by Court order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that due to above mentioned order, valuable rights of the petitioner, to defend himself, have been scuttled. As per learned counsel for the petitioner the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence the present petition.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner himself is responsible for the delay in the above mentioned trial, and that ample opportunities, i.e. more than 10 opportunities, had been afforded to the petitioner to complete his defence evidence but he adopted the delaying tactics and therefore, the learned trial Court was left with no option but to exercise its discretion and close the evidence of the petitioner by Court order. While defending the impugned order, the learned State counsel has argued that sole motive behind the filing of present petition is to delay the trial and that intentions of the petitioner being mala fide, the petition deserves dismissal.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

9. A perusal of record shows that the learned trial Court recorded the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 04.11.2024 and fixed the case for defence evidence. Thereafter, more than 10 opportunities were afforded to the petitioner but only 3 witnesses were examined in his defence. Th