Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.20615 of 2011 ====================================================== Jitendra Kumar @ Dr. Jitendra Kumar & Ors. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hari Shankar Ray, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mahendra Thakur, Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha,APP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 11 14-12-2012 In this case, petitioner is challenging the order dated 4th May 2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 1589 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the court below has allowed the application dated 12th July 2010 filed [STATUTE] s on the next day. Petitioner Nos.1 is the husband, 2 is the brother of the husband and 3 is sister in-law (Bhabhi) of petitioner no.1. A complaint case was filed by O.P.No.2 making allegation that the O.P.No.2 was married with petitioner no.1 in accordance with Hindu rites and at the time of marriage sufficiently gifts were given by her parents to the petitioner no.1. After some time, husband and other family members started teasing, started demanding the cost of vehicle and in the mean time while she was staying at her in-laws‟ place, she could know Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20615 of 2011 (11) dt.14-12-201 2 / 8 2 the illegal relationship of her husband with one Rama Choudhary who was appointed on compassionate ground. It has been further alleged that the accused persons demanded Rs.2,50,000/- i.e. cost of Maruti car but due to financial constraint, this could not be fulfilled. It has been further stated that she was blessed with a child but the situation did not improve. It has further been alleged that the accused persons were hurling abuses and were perpetrating torture in different ways not only mentally but also used to assault her physically, ultimately all her ornaments and clothes were given by her parents were forcibly taken by the accused persons. This complaint petition led to institution of the present complaint case on the basis of the S.A. and the evidence, the court below took cognizance and issued summons to the accused to stand trial. It appears from the record that the O.P.No.2 examined one witness before charge. Even after giving sufficient opportunities the O.P. did not come forward with the witnesses and ultimately the court below vide order dated 9th March 2010 closed her evidence. An application dated 11th May 2010 was filed for discharge by the petitioners and vide order dated 3rd June 2010, the O.P.No.2 was asked to file a reply to the discharge application by the court below. This O.P.No.2 filed a reply as well Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20615 of 2011 (11) dt.14-12-201 3 / 8 3 as an application [STATUTE] te the case because she remained under the impression that the matter would be settled as petitioners had given assurance for the settlement of the dispute outside the court. The court vide order dated 4th May 2011 passed the impugned order thereby allowed the O.P.No.2 to lead the evidence before charges. It appears, even before the charge, the O.P. did not examine the witnesses so that the charge could not have been framed against the accused persons. The plea has been taken that she always remained under dark on the assurance of the accused persons showing inclination to settle the dispute and, as such, she was under impression, there was no need for her to attend the court. This plea of the O.P.No.2 was accepted and she was allowed to examine the witnesses. During the pendency of this application, petitioners filed I.A. challenging the jurisdiction of the court itself stating that the court at Muzaffarpur had no territorial jurisdiction as the court at Patna has jurisdiction apparent from the narration of facts mentioned in the complaint petition. So far the point of jurisdiction is concerned, it cannot be decided in co- lateral proceeding when the petitioner no.1 had challenged the order of cognizance before this Court vide Cr.Misc.No. 7102 of 2009 and the same was rejected and at the same time the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20615 of 2011 (11) dt.14-12-201 4 / 8 4 jurisdiction of court is based on mixed question of fact and law, which can be decided only on the basis of material brought before the court below during trial. Counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no justification for the court to accept the plea of O.P.No.2 that she remained in dark on the assurance given to her by the petitioners. Counsel for the O.P.No.2 has submitted that the order passed by the court below is completely a reasoned order it does not require interference. It is well settled principle of law that power [STATUTE] if the court feels, proposed evidences are essential for the just decision of the case, the court will have the jurisdiction to exercise the power to call, or recall any witness. It would be apt to quote Section 311 Cr.P.C. which is as follows: Section 311. Power to summon material witness, or examine persons present.- Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any persons as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20615 of 2011 (11) dt.14-12-201 5 / 8 5 decision of the case.‟ Section itself is very clear that the court has power to summon a witness or recall or reexamine any person already examined, if his evidence appears to be essential to just decision of the ca

Applicable IPC Section: 311

Statute Text:
Section 311 of the Indian Penal Code. OffencePunishment. Whoever is a thug, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.