Sr. No. 77 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No. 544/2025 Amarjeet Singh & Ors. …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Ms. Meenakshi Slathia Kaur, Advocate V/s UT of J&K …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. P.D. Singh, Dy. AG CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE ORDER 17.09.2025 1. Through the medium of the instant petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”), whereby the Trial Court dismissed their application and declined to truncate the proceedings against them. 2. The petitioners have sought the aforesaid relief on the ground that the witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the prosecution’s case, and therefore, it would be a futile exercise to proceed further with the trial. Consequently, the petitioners contend that the proceedings ought to be truncated. 3. On the other hand, Mr. P.D. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents, submits that material witnesses are yet to be examined in the case. Therefore, the proceedings could not be truncated prior to 2 their examination. He further submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that one material witness is yet to be examined, but procuring his presence is not possible as he has left the country and his statement could not be recorded, with no possibility of examination in the near future. The witness whose statement is yet to be recorded is the complainant in this case, on whose complaint the FIR was registered and prosecution initiated. He is, therefore, a material witness. Moreover, he is the victim who allegedly sustained injuries, with allegations that such injuries were inflicted by the accused. Consequently, no illegality can be found in the impugned order whereby the Trial Court declined to truncate the proceedings on the plea of the petitioners. 5. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the Trial Court is hereby upheld. However, it is directed that the Trial Court shall expedite the trial and take necessary steps to secure the presence of the aforesaid witness so that his statement may be recorded at the earliest. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) Judge JAMMU Amit 17.09.2025