The Patna High Court dismissed an application seeking quashing of an order that closed evidence judicially against a petitioner in a criminal case due to the witness's unavailability, finding no merit in the plea.
Application dismissed; order closing evidence upheld without granting further opportunity to examine the witness.
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.38767 of 2015
Arising Out of Complaint Case No.-1763 Year-2010 Thana- BHAGALPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Bibi Rukhasana @ Bibi Ruksana, W/o Md. Anna @ Md. Hannan, Resident of Sah Market, P.S. Kotwali, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-12-2018
Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned A.P.P. for the State.
relief:
“ That this is an application for quashing the order dated 12/05/15 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 59/15 by Learned Session Judge, Bhagalpur whereby and where under learned Sessions Judge, has pleased to dismissed Cr. Rev. No. 59/15 and thereby upholding the order passed by the learned judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in complaint case 1763/10 on 9/2/15
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38767 of 2015 dt.11-12-2018 2/3
whereby and where under Learned Judicial Magistrate has pleased to closed the evidence to the prejudice of the petitioner.”
1763 of 2010, in which the opposite party no. 2 is alleged to have entered the house and assaulted the inmate and also having snatched a golden chain from the neck of the complainant. During the course of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner wanted the examination of one Guriya Kumari and a date was fixed. However, the same could not materialize and the Court repeatedly gave dates and ultimately, the evidence of the petitioner was closed.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38767 of 2015 dt.11-12-2018 3/3
complaint, the said witness Guriya Kumari has not even been referred to or mentioned in any capacity, much less that of an eye witness, and even in the column of witnesses, her name is not mentioned.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar
| AFR/NAFR U |
|---|
| T |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order closing evidence to the prejudice of the petitioner should be quashed.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to examine the witness Guriya Kumari.
Bibi Rukhasana @ Bibi Ruksana
The State of Bihar
Md. Sufiyan
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
