Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the impugned order dated 05.03.2010 (P1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide which, application filed by the Petitioner for recalling the complainant has been dismissed.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the complainant - Respondent No. 2 (Ajmer Singh Matharoo) was partly examined in chief on 28.02.2006 and his further examination in chief was deferred as the witness had not brought the copy of the sale deed. PW was bound down for the next date and he was directed to bring the entire record and case was adjourned for 25.03.2006. On the next date of hearing, complainant did not appear before the trial Court. After a gap of 2 1/2 years, complainant/Respondent No. 2 moved an application for transfer of the case before Shri G.K. Rai, Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and case was transferred to the Court of Shri K.K. Bansal, JMIC, Ludhiana. The counsel for the Petitioner appeared in the Court and moved an application for exemption on behalf of accused Avtar Singh. The personal appearance of the accused Avtar Singh was exempted by the trial Court. On 12.11.2008, Shri K.K Bansal, JMIC, Ludhiana was on leave. Counsel for the Petitioner went for some urgent work. Meanwhile, the case was transferred to the Court of Shri Kamaljit Singh, JMIC, Ludhiana on same day. An oral request for short adjournment was made on behalf of counsel for the Petitioner. The request was not accepted. Due to this reason, the Petitioner could not cross examine the complainant and the trial Court instead of deferring the cross examination, treated the cross examination nil and the case was adjourned for 02.12.2008 for remaining prosecution evidence. When the Petitioner came to know that the trial Court has not deferred the cross examination of the complainant, then Petitioner filed an application for recalling the complainant/Respondent No. 2. Copy of the application was also supplied to the opposite counsel and the case was adjourned for 03.01.2009 for filing the reply of the application. No reply was filed on 03.01.2009. Reply was finally filed on 28.01.2009. Thereafter, on 05.03.2010, the JMIC, Ludhiana dismissed the application for recalling the complainant on the ground that sufficient opportunities have already been afforded for cross examination but he failed to cross examine the complainant.
(3.) LEARNED State counsel, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer made by the Petitioner on the ground that Respondent/complainant is residing abroad and it is very difficult to get his presence secured. It is further submitted that the Petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunities to cross examine the complainant but he failed to do so. As such, no further opportunity should be granted to the Petitioner. Heard.;