Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4271 of 2011 ================================================== Tulmohan Khan @ Sajjan Khan S/o Late Ram Sundar @ Fusur Khan R/o Village and P.S- Bangaon, Distt- Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Fagu Paswan S/o Late Tarar Paswan R/o Village & P.S. Bangaon, Distt. Saharsa. .... .... Opp. Parties ================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 6. 08-10-2012 Heard Sri Bibhuti Narayan Pandey, learned senior counsel, who was assisted by Sri Suresh Chand Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Sri Vijay Kumar „Mukul‟, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of complainant/opposite party no. 2. The sole petitioner, who is accused in complaint case no. 1450 of 2004, in which, order of cognizance was passed for the offence under [STATUTE] , has approached this Court while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 14-01-2011 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 125 of 2010 by Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4271 of 2011 (6) dt.08-10-2012 2 / 5 2 learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa (hereinafter referred to as “Sessions Judge”). By the said order, learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the order dated 30-07-2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Saharsa (hereinafter referred to as „Magistrate‟) in Complaint Case No. 1450 of 2004. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 30-07-2010, has allowed the petition filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as „Cr.P.C.‟) on behalf of complainant for examining two witnesses. Learned senior counsel, while assailing both the orders, submits that for a land dispute, a complaint case was filed in the year 2004 by opposite party no. 2, in which order of cognizance was passed on 08-06-2006. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the court below and he was granted bail. He submits that the complainant had not taken any sincere effort to get the trial concluded, but one way or the other, he tried to delay the conclusion of the trial and as such, witnesses were produced at belated stage. Anyhow after examining witnesses, evidence was closed on 30-08-2009 and the case was fixed for recording statement of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4271 of 2011 (6) dt.08-10-2012 3 / 5 3 accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 11-09-2009 and on the same date, a petition was filed by the complainant without disclosing the plausible reason for producing further witnesses and the learned Magistrate, without recording specific reason for granting such indulgence in a mechanical manner, allowed the petition, which was assailed by the petitioner before the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court too has rejected the revision petition, vide order dated 14-01-2011. It was submitted that though under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate was competent to allow the complainant to examine witnesses, but for that very purpose, it was necessary to get satisfied on the reasons assigned by the complainant for examining witnesses in a case, in which, cognizance order was passed long back and trial was kept pending for several years and also statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was already recorded. He further submits that nature of accusation is also a necessary factor for interference with the impugned order. He submits that from the complaint Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4271 of 2011 (6) dt.08-10-2012 4 / 5 4 petition itself, it is evident that in land dispute, the complaint petition was filed and cognizance order was passed for the offence under [STATUTE] . In such trivial nature of cases, in casual manner, the learned Magistrate was not required to entertain petition, that too after conclusion of the evidence and recording statement of the accused persons. Sri Vijay Kumar „Mukul‟, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner had assailed the order of learned Magistrate before the Revisional Court and as such, it is evident that trial has further lingered at the instance of the petitioner himself. He also submits that examination of two witnesses was necessary, which was allowed by the learned Magistrate by the impugned order, which requires no interference. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused materials available on record. After going through the record, it is evident that in this case, prosecution case was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4271 of 2011 (6) dt.08-10-2012 5 / 5 5 closed and statement of accused was already recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Moreover, the learned Magistrate, while allowing the petition under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., has not given any cogent reason for the same and as such, for the ends of justice, it is required to interfere with both the orders i.e. order dated 30-07-2010 passed by the learned Magistrate as well as order dated 14-01-2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and order dated 30-07-2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Saharsa in Complaint Case No. 1450 of 2004 is hereby set aside. The learned Magistrate is required to proceed with the case expeditiously, so that trial may come to its logical end without any further delay. Anay (Rakesh Kumar, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.