JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 20.09.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 416 of 2023 in connection with M.C.A. No. 3573 of 2023 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1887 of 2016 by which the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has dismissed the Criminal Revision No. 416 of 2023 at the stage of admission itself, being not maintainable. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the complainant of Complaint Case No. 1887 of 2016 in which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate concerned on 13.02.2017 for the offences punishable under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. After closing the evidence before charge, the case was fixed for framing of charge. In the meantime, a petition under section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant on 03.06.2023 which was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 01.08.2023. Again challenging the said order dated 01.08.2023, Criminal Revision No. 416 of 2023 was filed in the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. The learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi took note of the fact that the case was running for evidence before charge since 28.02.2017 and earlier vide order dated 04.02.2023, the prayer of the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the petitioner was directed to adduce all evidence within two dates subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- to the accused. The complainant did not comply the order dated 04.02.2023. No witness was produced by the complainant nor the cost of Rs.500/- was paid to the accused. Because of the said conduct of the complainant, on 29.05.2023, the trial court closed the evidence of the complainant and fixed the case for framing of charge. Thereafter, another petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed which was rejected by the court concerned. No witness was produced by the complainant nor the cost of Rs.500/- was paid to the accused. Because of the said conduct of the complainant, on 29.05.2023, the trial court closed the evidence of the complainant and fixed the case for framing of charge. Thereafter, another petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed which was rejected by the court concerned. The learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sethuraman V. Rajamanickam, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 153 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inter-alia observed that application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the witness was an order of interlocutory nature, hence a criminal revision under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and therefore, dismissed the criminal revision at the stage of admission being not maintainable. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned court concerned failed to consider that there is no deliberate or intentional laches on the part of the petitioner, rather due to unavoidable circumstances the complainant could not produce the evidence on the date fixed. 5. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State), reported in (2013) 5 SCC 741 , para-15 of which reads as under:- “15. The scope and object of the provision is to enable the court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. An application under Section 311 CrPC must not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the opposite party. Further, the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised, provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a witness, is germane to the issue involved. Further, the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised, provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a witness, is germane to the issue involved. An opportunity of rebuttal however, must be given to the other party. The power conferred under Section 311 CrPC must therefore, be invoked by the court only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The very use of words such as “any court”, “at any stage”, or “or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings”, “any person” and “any such person” clearly spells out that the provisions of this section have been expressed in the widest possible terms, and do not limit the discretion of the court in any way. There is thus no escape if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. The determinative factor should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case.” It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no escape if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case and the determinative factor should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 20.09.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 416 of 2023 in connection with M.C.A. No. 3573 of 2023 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1887 of 2016 be quashed and set aside. 6. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer to quash the order dated 20.09.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 416 of 2023 in connection with M.C.A. No. 3573 of 2023 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1887 of 2016. 6. The learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer to quash the order dated 20.09.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 416 of 2023 in connection with M.C.A. No. 3573 of 2023 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1887 of 2016. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that in this criminal miscellaneous petition, the only order which is sought to be quashed is the order passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Criminal Revision No. 416 of 2023 dated 20.09.2023 and in view of the principle of law settled in the case of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam (supra) there is absolutely no illegality in the order passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that there is absolutely no averment made by the complainant -petitioner in his petition before the trial court, as to how the evidence of any witness sought to be examined by him is relevant for just decision of the case. Hence, it is submitted that there being no illegality in the order dated 20.09.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 416 of 2023 in connection with M.C.A. No. 3573 of 2023 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1887 of 2016, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mahima Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Creative Property Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Another, reported in (2024) SCC Online Cal 939 wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court inter alia relying upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam (supra) and Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. CBI, reported in (2017) 14 SCC 809 held that a revision application is not applicable against an order passed by a learned Magistrate rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Rajamanickam (supra) and Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. CBI, reported in (2017) 14 SCC 809 held that a revision application is not applicable against an order passed by a learned Magistrate rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is absolutely no quarrel that a revision is not maintainable in respect of an order by which the Magistrate rejects the prayer to recall the witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C., in view of the principle of law settled in the case of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam (supra) and Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. CBI (supra). Hence, there is absolutely no illegality in the order dated 20.09.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No. 416 of 2023 in connection with M.C.A. No. 3573 of 2023 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1887 of 2016 by which the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi has dismissed the Criminal Revision No. 416 of 2023 at the stage of admission itself, being not maintainable. 9. Accordingly this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.