CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(1991) 01 P&H CK 0030

Amarjit Kaur vs Onkar Singh and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 18 January 1991 · Citation: (1992) 1 DMC 250

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.S. Chahal, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Rev. No. 1181 of 1988

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 337 words

G.S. Chahal, J.—As per it was the order by complaint under. Sections 406, 498A Indian Penal Code against Onkar Singh and Ors. which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr. The petitioner had examined some witnesses in support of her complaint on 2 11-1988 and the case was adjourned to 24-11-1988. On 28-10-1988, the complainant had moved an application u/s 311, Code of Criminal Procedure for examination of three witnesses, namely, Narinder Singh, Satnam Singh and Om Prakash Ummat and his prayer allowed on 2-11-1988 but it was directed that the witnesses will be examined was if produced, by the complainant herself. The complainant then moved another application on 17-11-1988 asking for issuance of summonses to the aforesaid witnesses. The application was declined on the soleground that it had already been ordered that the complainant shall produce the witnesses at her own responsibility and the application was not maintainable. This order is dated 17-11-1988 and in the present petition the legality of this order has been challenged.

2.

It is not disputed at the bar that the evidence of the petitioner was still in progress when the application was moved. Section 244(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Prescribes that the Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue summonses to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or produce any document or any thing. I am of the considered view that the Magistrate could not refuse the prayer of the complainant for issuing of summonses to the witnesses to be examined by her. It was not a delaying tectics on the part of the complainant. It was only on 2-11-1988 that she had been allowed to examine the witnesses and soon thereafter she had moved another application for the issuance of summonses. Complainant had the right to seek assistance of the Court for production of the witnesses. The order of the Magistrate is not justified. I hereby set aside that order and direct that the summonses shall be issued to the witnesses.