- (1.) Petitioner, namely, Anil Garg son of Daya Nand Garg, resident of Street No.3, Krishna Nagari, Abohar, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka has filed the present revision petition challenging order dated 29.7.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka whereby his application under Section 91 Cr.PC seeking direction to the investigating officer to produce the statement of witnesses was rejected. While dismissing the application, learned Court has observed that the petitioner has every right to call the statement of witnesses during his defence to prove his innocence, if any.
(2.) Briefly stated, FIR No.10 dated 11.1.2014 under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC was registered at Police Station City-I, Abohar against the petitioner, his son and wife on the statement of Monika Garg wife of late Ved Garg. As per the FIR, she was married with Ved Garg about 12 years back and two children were born out of this wedlock. After the marriage, the accused including the petitioner started harassing the complainant and her husband and stated that they will not give any share from the shop and house. The husband of the complainant was upset. The complainant was informed by her husband that the petitioner, his son Vishnu Garg and wife Manju Garg have forcibly sent him out of the shop. After saying so, he went out from the house and after some time returned back to home and told the complainant that he is going. It seems that he had consumed some poisonous substance making allegations of Section 306 IPC against the petitioner, his son and wife. When the matter was pending before the trial Court, the petitioner moved an application under Section 91 Cr.PC seeking direction to the investigating officer to produce the statement of witnesses, namely, Brhama Nand son of Nanak Chand, Kewal Krishan son of Kochar Chand, Harbans Lal son of Sham Lal and Sanjeev Kumar son of Sant Lal, all residents of Mandi No.1, Abohar. As per application DSP Jagdish Bishnoi has conducted investigation in FIR No.10 dated 11.1.2014 and during investigation, he has recorded statement of the aforesaid referred witnesses.
(3.) These persons are running their shops adjoining to the shop of the petitioner. It has been alleged that though the investigating officer has placed on file the investigation report of the DSP, Abohar dated 16.7.2014, but has deliberately not produced the relevant record collected and statements recorded during the investigation which proves the innocence of the petitioner.;