IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-4058-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.02.2026 Gurnam Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for quashing of the order dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jaitu in case arising out of FIR No. 103 dated 09.07.2019, registered under Sections 326, 323, 341 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Jaitu, District Faridkot, whereby an application filed by him under Section 348 of BNSS (which is pari materia with Section 311 of Cr.P.C.), for summoning and examining Dr. Sumit Pathania and Dr. Gurbaksh Singh as witnesses, had been dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 26.11.2025, whereby the revision petition filed by him against the order dated 28.08.2025, had been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot.

2. The petitioner is the complainant and an injured victim in the aforementioned FIR. He was alleged to have sustained grievous injuries with sharp-edged weapons and subsequently underwent surgery at Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar, resulting in 40% permanent disability of his right arm. After completion of usual formalities and necessary investigation, challan was presented in the Court. The trial had commenced. After closure of prosecution evidence and recording of defence evidence, the petitioner moved an application under Section 348 of BNSS for examination of the treating doctors, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court as well as by learned revisional Court. Aggrieved from the same, the present petition has been filed. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the learned trial Court as well as learned revisional Court did not apply judicious mind and had not appreciated the facts of the case correctly. The complete medical record of his treatment at Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar formed part of the challan. The treating doctors, namely Dr. Sumit Pathania and Dr. Gurbaksh Singh, were duly cited as prosecution witnesses at Serial Nos. 5 and 16 respectively. However, despite commencement of prosecution evidence and examination of nine witnesses, the said doctors could not be examined due to inadvertence on the part of the prosecution. The prosecution evidence was closed after availing several opportunities vide order dated 05.12.2024 and the statement of the accused under Section 351 of BNSS was recorded and defence evidence was also led. At the stage of preparation of final arguments, it came to notice that the material witnesses who were required to prove the surgical treatment and medical record of Amandeep Hospital had remained unexamined. Hence, the petitioner had moved aforesaid application. However, the learned trial Court dismissed the application by passing the impugned order dated 28.08.2025 solely on the grounds of delay and alleged lacuna, without examining the necessity and relevance of the evidence. The revision petition preferred thereafter was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide order dated 26.11.2025. Both the Courts had adopted a hyper-technical approach and have failed to appreciate that the petitioner is a victim-complainant in an FIR case, where the conduct of prosecution evidence lies entirely with the State and the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the lapse or oversight of the prosecution in not examining material medical witnesses.

4. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the examination of the said doctors is essential for proving the medical and surgical r