IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.660 of 2009
RAJENDRA SINGH @ RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH PANCHYAT
SEWAK, GRAM PANCHAYAT- BANDHU JAY RAM, BLOCK-
PIRPAITTI, P.S. PIRPAITTI, DISTRICT- BHGALPUR
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. MOST. SHAHIDA KHATOON, W/O LATE SAMSUDDIN, VILL-
KHANPUR, P.S. PIRPAITTI, DIST. BHGALPUR
-----------
FOR THE PETITIONER………………… MR.UPENDRA PRATAP SINGH. ADV.
FOR THE STATE…………… MR. R. ROY. Adv.
3 10.12.2010 Heard both sides.
Petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.01.2009
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bhagalpur in
complaint case no. 604(C) of 2002, whereby the application dated
19.03.2008 filed on behalf of the complainant under Section 311
of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been considered and
allowed with certain conditions i.e., imposition of cost of 100. It
appears, learned trial court has found that the accused were also at
default as one of them did not present himself before the Court
leading to cancellation of bail and issuance of non-bailable
warrant. It has also delayed the proceeding.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing, the
order submits that the prosecution in the present case has become
persecution, in view of the fact that since 2002, the matter is
pending. Adequate opportunity was granted to the prosecution but
it failed to produce any witness, as a result whereof the evidence
of the prosecution was closed on 02.02.2008, whereafter the
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C was filed.
Learned trial court in the impugned order has
2
considered the facts emanating from the records. It has taken into
consideration the fact that complainant was widow and had to
travel a long way to the Court for prosecution. Having considered
the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, learned trial
court found it expedient to allow the said application on
imposition of cost. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the
said order. While upholding the impugned order, this Court directs
that the complainant be informed and granted three
dates/opportunities within a period of 45 days to produce her
evidence. In case, the complainant fails to produce witnesses on
her behalf, the evidence of the prosecution shall be closed and the
court below shall proceed to dispose of the case.
The application is disposed of.
Amrendra ( K. K. Mandal, J.)