IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16118-2023 (O&M)

Reserved on 21.08.2025 Pronounced on 09.09.2025 ANKUR DAWAR ...... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

...... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Keshav Partap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Rahul Singh Birdi, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH . J .

1. By invoking the inherent jurisdiction vested in this Court by virtue of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing/setting aside the order dated 14.12.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class Ludhiana, hereinafter being referred as “trial Court” only.

2. By virtue of above mentioned impugned order, the learned trial Court has closed the prosecution evidence by Court order, and proceed further with the trial.

3. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the order to close prosecution evidence by Court order, by the learned trial Court, is illegal, arbitrary, amounting to denial of justice to the petitioner. In addition to above, the petitioner has also sought the setting aside of order dated 21.03.2023, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition against the impugned order, while holding that the revision petition is not maintainable as the order of closing the prosecution evidence is an interlocutory order.

4. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that the above mentioned orders have been passed in a trial pertaining to FIR No.11 dated 24.02.2016, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Darsi, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana. In the above mentioned FIR once the investigation was completed by the police, a challan had been filed on 06.10.2016 and after framing of charge the trial is in progress. It shall not be out of place to mention here that in the above mentioned trial once the charge was framed against the respondent on 05.08.2017, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence and after giving numerous opportunities for prosecution evidence, the learned trial Court by virtue of order dated 14.12.2022 closed the prosecution evidence and fixed the case for statement of accused under Section

313 Cr.P.C.

5. It is relevant to mention here that after closing of prosecution evidence the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded on 23.01.2023. Subsequent thereto, i.e. on 24.02.2023, an application was moved by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence under Section 311 Cr.P.C. However the same has been dismissed.

6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case valuable rights of the petitioner are involved and that without passing any speaking order and without affording appropriate opportunity to lead evidence, the prosecution evidence has been closed by the learned trial Court. As per learned counsel for the petitioner in fact the chronology of events pertaining to instant case would show that the delay in recording of prosecution evidence has been on account of non-appearance of the accused on number of occasions and not due to any lapse attributable to the petitioner or the prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that on numerous occasions when the case was fixed for prosecution evidence, the accused did not turn up before the Court and moved application seeking for exemption from personal appearance.

7. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence for which the accused are facing trial is serious in nature being an offence punishable with imprisonment for life and therefore, without adopting all the measures to procure the presence of prosecution witnesses before the Court, the Court should not have close the prosecution evidence, merely on the ground that