Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rao Virender Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 31 March, 2022
CRM-M-13329-2022 -1-
123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13329-2022
Date of decision:31.03.2022
RAO VIRENDER SINGH ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
Present: Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, DAG, Haryana.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 39 of 01.03.2011, registered
at Police Station Radaur, District Yamunanagar, whereins offences constituted
under Sections 323, 324, 427, 435, 452, 506, 148, 149 of IPC, are embodied.
2. Apparently the FIR (supra), is of the year 2011, and, the trial as
became entered thereons by the learned trial Court, has yet not concluded.
Obviously, the petitioner becomes aggrieved from the delay in the conclusion of
the trial, as arises from the FIR (supra).
3. The controversy which is engaging the contesting litigants rests,
upon the delays as purportedly made on the part of the prosecution in not
ensuring the earliest termination of the trial, as arises from the FIR (supra).
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended with
vigor before this Court, that despite this Court through making a direction, as,
carried in paragraph 8 of a verdict made on 21.11.2018, upon CRM-M-41066-
2015, to the learned trial Judge concerned, and, also upon the prosecution
concerned, to not grant or avail any further opportunities for adducing
prosecution evidence, yet the mandate carried in paragraph 8 of verdict (supra),
1 of 5
paragraph whereof extracted hereinafter has been repeatedly breached, and,
violated at the instance of the public prosecutor concerned.
"8. The Court has also gone through the judgment referred to and relied
upon by learned counsel for the private respondents in Mohit @ Sonu's
case (supra). However, the above detailed facts do make out a case that
this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. certainly has the power to interfere
and set-aside the impugned orders. Accordingly, the impugned orders
dated 7.10.2015 and subsequent order dated 17.11.2015, whereby
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, are set-aside and
prosecution is given one more opportunity to conclude the evidence.
However, it is made clear that on the date fixed for the purpose by
learned trial Judge, the complainant as well as private witness shall
remain present in the Court and the summons of official witness i.e.
Medical Officer shall be issued by the Court below and the Court shall
ensure the presence of the said witnesses for recording their statements
and no further adjournment shall be given beyond that date."
5. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner, makes a challenge
to the order made subsequent thereto, on the prosecutor's application cast under
Section 311 Cr.P.C., order whereof is comprised in Annexure P-7,
wherethroughs, an endeavour was made for placing on record, the CT scan
report, as became mentioned in the MLR concerned, and, besides for
examination of the author thereof. He contends with vigor, that the affirmative
orders passed, upon the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., rather
subsequent to the afore mandate being carried in paragraph 8 of the verdict, as,
made by this Court, does completely breach the absolute diktat carried therein,
and, therefore, he contends that the impugned order is unmeritworthy, and, is
liable to be quashed, and, set aside.
6. However, the afore made prayer before this Court by the learned
counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, as he has read in isolation the
above extracted paragraph, and, has not borne in mind the context in respect
2 of 5
whereof it became passed. The relevant context in respect whereof, it became
rendered, is to be gathered from the subsequent thereto paragraph, as occurs in
verdict (supra), wherein this Court has ordered, that the learned trial Judge
ensuring the issuance of summons, upon the prosecution witnesses concerned,
for theirs making their respective appearances before him, for theirs
examinations-in-chief, and, besides their cross-examinations being recorded by
the learned trial Judge concerned. Consequently, if the learned trial Judge
concerned, had issued summons, and, yet the prosecution witnesses did not
appear, thereupon, there was no breach of the orders (supra), on the part of the
learned trial Judge concerned.
7. It would otherwise arise, if no summons were issued against them.
It is fairly stated at the bar, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as, reflected in the list of prosecution
witnesses, has been recorded, both in their respective examinations-in-chief,
and, also in their respective cross-examinations. However, no evidence/material
in support of the afore submission has been placed on record by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be firmly concluded
that the entire list of prosecution witnesses has been exhausted.
8. Be that as it may, moreover, the import of the above paragraph
carried in verdict (supra), as made by this Court, cannot be construed to
completely estop the prosecution, to after the exhaustion of the list of
prosecution witnesses, to re-recourse the procedure contemplated under Section
311 Cr.P.C., significantly given the above statutory provision(s), and, other
compatible statutory provisions, as, carried in Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., do not
create, any statutory estoppels against the prosecution to re-recourse as, and,
when deemed fit, the statutory provisions carried in Section 311 Cr.P.C., or other
3 of 5
compatible provisions therein. If the afore estoppel is created against the
prosecution, thereupon, the principle underlying the mandate carried in Section
311 Cr.P.C., inasmuch as, as and, when incriminatory evidence of grave
evidentiary vigor, does surface, and, also when it is just, and, essential for
sustaining the charge, rather being ensured to become complied, and, obviously
the learned trial Judge concerned, after bearing in mind all the relevant
parameters (supra), becoming hence enjoined to either accept the apposite
application or to dismiss it.
9. Bearing in mind, the above formulated underlying principles
governing, and, regulating the rejections, and, allowings of application(s), cast
under Section 311 Cr.P.C., and, irrespective of the fact, that there is no statutory
estoppel against the prosecution to re-rear application(s) under Section 311
Cr.P.C., principles whereof become comprised in the evidence strived to be
adduced being just, and, essential, rather for sustaining the charge, thereupon,
this Court is of the firm belief, that since the prosecution evidence strived for
being adduced became comprised in the CT scan report, hence bearing reference
No.158 of 07.03.2011, and, also given its becoming mentioned in the MLR
drawn by the Doctor concerned. Therefore, the adduction into evidence of the
afore was just, and, a fair endeavour of the prosecution, to therethroughs, make
concerted efforts to prove the charge against the accused. Moreover, its mere
adduction was not sufficient, the author thereof was also required to be stepping
into the witness box, to prove his making it, also thereafter, it was permissible
for the defence counsel engaged by the accused to cross-examine him.
Therefore, for the afore made reasons, and, when obviously, an opportunity to
cross-examine the Doctor concerned, or the author, who prepared the CT scan
4 of 5
report, was always available, thereupon this Court hence does not deem it fit,
and, appropriate to quash the impugned order, as, carried in Annexure P-7.
10. It is directed that the learned trial Judge concerned, shall ensure,
unless for valid reasons, that the trial entered upon, case arising from FIR
(supra), becomes concluded within six months hereafter.
11. Disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
31.03.2022 JUDGE
ithlesh
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
