- (1.) JITENDRA Chauhan, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 15.2.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the order dated 17.11.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kurukshetra dismissing the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was affirmed.
(2.) HEARD. The learned revisional Court while dismissing the revision has observed as under:- "After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the present revision cannot be allowed. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on 17.8.2011 i.e. after evidence of prosecution was closed and in that application request was made to summon PW Ram Pal alias Pala Ram son of Narata Ram as that witness was left to be cited in the list of witnesses by the Investigating Officer and that application was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 8.9.2011 and after dismissal of that application, this application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. again has been moved for summoning of Dr.Bawa Singh to prove the MLR dated 11.1.2005 and again Dr. Bawa Singh was not cited as a witness by the investigating officer and from the second application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. it appears that complainant is in the habit of filing applications on one pretext or the other. Otherwise, petitioner-complainant could have sought summoning of concerned doctor to prove the MLR dated 11.1.2005 in the application moved earlier under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 6. A perusal of complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner in the court shows that name of Dr.Bawa Singh is not mentioned in the list of witnesses. So when the complainant herself has not cited name of Dr.Bawa Singh who conducted MLR on 11.1.2005 in the list of witnesses then summoning of the doctor and production of report of MLR would be wastage of time. By moving such applications not only the trial is protracted but valuable time of the Court is also being wasted. In the statement of petitioner Parveen Kumar, who appeared as PW1, it appeared that she was given beatings and she was medico legally examined and MLR was marked as Mark-A and even witness of PW3 Gulab Singh the father of petitioner and PW6 Harish Kumar the brother of complainant have categorically stated that injuries were caused to complainant-petitioner by Ramneesh at D.C. Colony, Kurukshetra where complainant-petitioner and her husband were residing and PW6 is eye witness of the incident and injuries as shown in the MLR are simple in nature and in the opinion of this Court, if the doctor is not examined, then it is not going to affect the merits of the case as the accused are not facing trial for causing hurt, rather they are facing trial under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. Moreover, as observed earlier the petitioner could have sought the summoning of doctor in the earlier application. So, this court does not find any impropriety in the order passed by the learned lower court and learned lower court has rightly used its discretion not to summon the witness. Many effective opportunities have already been availed by the prosecution and all the material witnesses have already been examined. So this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order dated 17.11.2011. So this revision is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed."
(3.) IN view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition as the learned revisional court as well as the learned trial Court after considering all aspects of the matter dismissed the application of the petitioner. As such, the present petition is dismissed.;