Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 264 (JHR)

Mazhar Imam v. State of Jharkhand

2017-02-08

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.S. Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5. 2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 09.12.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, in T.R. No. 2379 of 2013, corresponding to Complaint Case No. 1662 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the application preferred by the petitioner u/s 311 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. It appears that the petitioner is the complainant who has filed a complaint case against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 for the offence punishable u/ss. 448, 420, 421, 379, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. After conducting an inquiry u/s 202 of the Cr.P.C. cognizance was taken u/s 379, 323, 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Since after charge was framed the complainant did not produce his witnesses for a considerable length of time, the evidence of the complainant was closed on 11.07.2013. Subsequent thereto an application was filed u/s 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling and re-examination of the witnesses which however was rejected on 09.12.2013 and which was affirmed by the revisional court vide order dated 12.09.2014. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an apparent error in the impugned order dated 09.12.2013 as after charge one witness of the complainant was examined. It has been submitted that the father of the complainant was seriously ill as a result of which the complainant could not take effective steps in the case and if one opportunity is given to the complainant he shall produce his witnesses before the learned trial court. 4. Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has submitted that the lackadaisical attitude on the part of the complainant has rightly been taken into consideration by the learned trial court while closing the complainant evidence on 11.07.2013. 5. It appears that charge was framed on 20.03.2012 u/ss. 379, 323, 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. From 20.03.2012 till the complainant evidence was closed on 11.07.2013 the petitioner has manage to produce only one witness who was examined as C.W.1. 5. It appears that charge was framed on 20.03.2012 u/ss. 379, 323, 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. From 20.03.2012 till the complainant evidence was closed on 11.07.2013 the petitioner has manage to produce only one witness who was examined as C.W.1. Although there was an apparent factual error in the impugned order dated 09.12.2013 with respect to the fact that no witnesses of the complainant was examined after framing of the charge which is contrary to the records but as it appear that the trial prolonged on account of the laxity on the part of the complainant. The application which has been filed u/s 311 of the Cr.P.C. also does not inspire confidence as the same is not inconsonance with the provisions of Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. The complainant therefore at this stage when the evidence of the complainant has been closed due to his intentional delay wants to fill up the lacuna in the complaint case while producing further witnesses which has properly been appreciated by the learned trial court as well as by the learned revisional court while refusing to entertain such application, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned orders dated 09.12.2013 and 12.09.2014. Accordingly, having found no merit in this application, the same is, hereby, dismissed.