IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:03.02.2026 Pronounced on: 09.03.2026.

Sushil Kumar Gupta ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by :Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the respondents No.2 to 4 (through VC).

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

While conducting a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 325, 506 and 34 IPC, arising out of FIR No.320 dated 04.07.2022, Police Station Dabua District Faridabad. The learned Judicial Magistrate passed the following order on 09.10.2023:- “Accused Jitender produced before me in custody.

His presence is marked. Let, he be kept in judicial custody and be produced before the court on 23.10.2023.

PW-2 Radhey Shyam is present and this cross examination is completely recorded today. No other PW is present today. Prosecution has availed several opportunities. This Court seems no justification to grant another opportunity for prosecution evidence. Hence, the prosecution evidence is hereby closed by the court order.

Statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. be recorded on the date fixed.”

2. Aggrieved of the above mentioned order the complainant- petitioner, hereinafter being referred to as ‘petitioner’ only, filed a revision petition in the Court of Sessions. The above mentioned revision petition has been dealt with by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad although allowed the revision petition and set aside the above mentioned order dated 09.10.2023, hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’ only, but the abovesaid Court issued a direction for examination of petitioner only, as prosecution witness. The above mentioned situation has generated an impression as if the learned Additional Sessions Judge while setting aside the impugned order had given a limited opportunity, only, to the prosecution, i.e. opportunity to complete the examination of petitioner only.

3. Aggrieved of the above mentioned approach adopted by the learned trial Court the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. By virtue of present petition a direction has been sought for the learned trial Court to allow the prosecution to record the statement of all the unexamined witnesses.

4. Heard.

5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that very purpose of conducting a trial i.e. dispensation of justice has been completely ignored in the present case and that the learned trial Court without any justified reasons has curtailed the opportunity of the prosecution to lead its evidence. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the instant case is a very strange case wherein for the lapse committed by the officials of the Court, the petitioner, who is victim of assault, has been penalized. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that even after the setting aside of the order dated 09.10.2023, by the Revisional Court, the learned trial Court is of the view that only one witness, and not all the remaining unexamined witnesses, are supposed to be examined by the learned trial Court.

6. With regard to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that once the order dated 09.10.2023 itself stands set aside the natural interpretation of the order passed by the learned Revisional Court would be that all the unexamined witnesses can be examined by the prosecution, and not the petitioner only. In view of above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged for accepting the present revision petition, and to issue a direction to the learned trial Court to afford opportunity to the prosecution to examine all the remaining witnesses.

7. The learned State counsel has opted not to controvert the above mentioned arguments.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents