IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.6102 of 2010 SUNIL THAKUR, SON OF LATE UPENDRA THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMNAGAR, P.S. K.HAT, DISTRICT PURNEA. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. KIRAN DEVI, WIFE OF LATE KALANAND RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMNAGAR, P.S. K.HAT, DISTRICT PURNEA. ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2 14.5.2010 This application is directed against the orders dated 23.1.2009 and 6.11.2008 passed in C.A. No. 628 of 2006. The petitioner is aggrieved by an application filed on behalf of the complainant to examine a witness who is not named in the complaint petition nor was she examined at the stage of taking cognizance. It is submitted that this case has been filed due to enmity and due to the fact that there is another criminal case pending against the brother of the complainant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant wants this petitioner to compromise that matter and thus this false and fabricated case has been filed. There is no illegality in the order impugned. It is well known that the evidence of witnesses who are not named in the complaint/First Information Report or are not examined at the stage of enquiry sometimes (unless it is shown that there was a valid reason for not examining the witness earlier) loose their importance by virtue of this fact, therefore, in my opinion no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner as he would always have the liberty to raise this aspect of the matter in the trial. This application is thus disposed of. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)