J.R. Goyal, J. - (1.) This petition, under Section 482, CrPC, has been filed with the averments that the petitioners are witnesses in the Criminal Complainant No. 220/2005 State v. Suwa Lal & Ors. , under Sections 107, 116(3), CrPC and that they have been summoned by warrant of arrest and that despite of their appearance, statements were not recorded and expenses of travelling and diet were also not paid.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are being harassed by the SDM, Kekri without any reason. It is also contended that petitioners, who have been summoned as witnesses, are not accused and, therefore, not only they should have been treated in a dignified manner, also they should have been paid travelling and diet expenses and their statements ought to have been recorded without adjourning the case.
(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the complaint has been registered on the report of the SHO and petitioners were summoned as witnesses, but deliberately sometimes they did not appear, therefore, for ensuring their presence, the SDM, Kekri issued summons and warrants which cannot be said to be misuse of the process of Court. It is also submitted that on more than one occasion, evidence could not be recorded on account of request on behalf of the Counsel for the witnesses or sometimes on account of strike of the Advocates. It is also submitted that the witnesses never demanded travelling and diet expenses.;