Inderjit Singh, J. - (1.) AVTAR Singh -petitioner has filed this petition against the State of Punjab under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the order dated 2.7.2013 (Annexure -P3) passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Batala in a cross -case titled as State v. Satwant Singh etc. for the offences under Sections 326, 325, 324 and 323 IPC at Police Station Ghuman (Annexure -P. 2) in FIR No. 124 dated 4.9.2002/6.9.2002 for the offences under Section 307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Ghuman (Annexure -P. 1).
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. The order (Annexure -P. 3) passed by the SDJM has been placed on the record. As per this order, it is mentioned in the application under Section 311 CrP.C. itself that evidence of the prosecution was closed by order on 21.11.2012 and challan was presented on 21.11.2003. Charge was framed on 14.7.2004 and the application under Section 319 CrP.C. was moved after recording some evidence, which was decided on 4.7.2006. Thereafter, other witnesses were summoned by the Court, but the prosecution evidence was closed by Court order and five witnesses, namely, DSP Amrik Singh, Dr. Hardip Singh, Dr. Gurmit Singh Radiologist, ASI Vidya Sagar and SI Harjit Singh were required to be summoned to reach the just conclusion of the case. The learned SDJM vide order dated 2.7.2013 held that the application filed under Section 311 CrP.C. was filed which was already dismissed by the Court on 11.12.2012 on the ground that evidence has already been closed by order and the summons of the doctors were received back with the report that they had been transferred and the Investigating Officer did not appear in the Court. It is stated that the second application is not maintainable.
(3.) A perusal of the present petition shows that the evidence of the prosecution was closed by order on 21.11.2012. This order has not been challenged even in this petition. If the evidence of the prosecution has been closed by order by holding that sufficient effective opportunities have been availed by the prosecution and despite that the prosecution failed to conclude the evidence, therefore, it cannot be held that the order passed by the Court on 21.11.2012 was not as per law. Otherwise also, this order dated 21.11.2012 has not been challenged in this petition. Then the petitioner filed application under Section 311 CrP.C. which was also dismissed on 11.12.2012. That order has also not been challenged in the present petition. Instead of challenging these orders, the petitioner filed second application before the Court of SDJM and only that order has been challenged in the present case. A perusal of the record shows that no illegality has been committed by passing the impugned order by the learned SDJM. It was for the petitioner to show as to why the prosecution has not produced the evidence since 2004 after the charge was framed. There is nothing to justify such a long delay by the petitioner.;