This oral order dismisses a petition seeking to quash orders of discharge and rejected revision. The court held that inordinate delay by the complainant in producing witnesses during a civil dispute raising criminal offence colour makes discharge correct.
Petition to quash orders of discharge and rejected revision dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7093 of 2011
=================================================== Bhupendra Kumar S/o Sri Rameshwar Prasad R/o Tata Colony, P.S- Maner, Distt- Patna At Present House of Nagina Yadav, Punaichak, Near Devi Mandir, P.S- Shashtrinagar, Distt- Patna. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Kamlesh Kumar S/o Kabindra Kumar R/o Nasriganj, P.ODigha, P.S- Danapur, District- Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties =================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. A.P.Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S.B.Singh, APP Mr. V.K.Sinha =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 7. 23-04-2014 Heard Sri Arbind Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shyam Bihari Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of opp. party no. 2. The petitioner, who was complainant in Complaint Case No. 2848(C) of 2005, has approached this Court with a prayer to quash order dated 25-11-2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Patna in Cr. Revision No. 676 of 2009/Tr. No. 35 of 2010 and also for quashing of order dated 05-05-2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna (in short “Magistrate”).
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7093 of 2011 (7) dt.23-04-2014
2/3
By order dated 05-05-2009, on petition filed on behalf of opp. party no. 2 under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has discharged opp. party no. 2 from the case. The complainant/petitioner thereafter preferred a revision against order of discharge dated 05-05-2009 passed by the learned Magistrate, which was rejected. Both the orders have been assailed in the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on technicality the discharge petition was allowed. He submits that due to the reason beyond control of the petitioner, he failed to produce any witness before the charge and only on this ground, the learned Magistrate had allowed the discharge petition filed on behalf of opp. party no. 2.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opp. party no. 2 submits that a complaint petition was filed in the year 2005 giving a colour of criminal offence in a civil case. In the said complaint, cognizance order was passed in the year 2006 and thereafter, the case was adjourned on number of dates to enable the complainant to produce witness before the charge. However, the complainant did not produce any witness. He submits that it appears that complaint was filed only with a view to unnecessarily
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7093 of 2011 (7) dt.23-04-2014
3/3
harass the opp. party no. 2. Even though, the complaint was filed in the year 2005, till 2009 the complainant (petitioner) had not produced any witness before charge and as such, it was a fit case for discharge and the learned Magistrate has rightly passed the order dated 05-05-2009. He further submits that order of discharge petition has already been approved by the revisional court. The revisional court, while rejecting the revision of the petitioner, has assigned detailed reason, which requires no interference.
Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. If in a complaint petition, the complainant fails to take sincere effort to produce witness even before charge and matter is kept pending for an inordinate period, in that event, the concerned court has got no option but to pass an order for discharge. Moreover, order passed by the learned Magistrate has already been approved by the revisional court by assigning detailed reasons. I do not find any defect in either of the orders.
The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.)
Anay
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders of discharge and rejection of revision ought to be quashed given the failure to produce witnesses over an inordinate period.
Bhupendra Kumar
Kamlesh Kumar
Rakesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
