IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33422 of 2010 1. CHHOTELAL RAI SON OF LATE KISHUN RAI 2. SHAIL DEVI @ NAGINA DEVI WIFE OF LATE KISHUN RAI 3. MEENA DEVI WIFE OF SRI BHAGWAN RAI 4. DINESH RAI SON OF LATE KISHUN RAI 5. PHOOLJHARI DEVI @ PHULPATI DEVI WIFE OF DINESH RAI 6. BHUNESH RAI SON OF LATE KISHUN RAI 7. AWADHESH RAI SON OF BHUNESH RAI 8. SHUSHILA @ LALITA DEVI WIFE OF BHUNESH RAI 9. KUNTI DEVI WIFE OF AWADHESH RAI 10. SRI BHAGWAN RAI SON OF LATE KISHUN RAI, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SHRIPUR KHAS, P.S. GHORASAHAN, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN ….. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. JITENDRA SINGH, SON OF RAM SAKAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHRIPUR KHAS, P.S. GHORASAHAN, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN …. OPP. PARTIES ----------- 2. 4.3.2011 The petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 10.8.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No.546 of 2006, by which the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari has rejected an application for examining the alleged victim girl in exercise of its power u/s.311Cr.P.C. It has been submitted that the Trial Court has rejected the application only for the reason that the victim had not been examined u/s.164 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it could not be proper for her to be examined during trial. I fail to understand such a logic. If the alleged victim herself is ready to come and depose before the court which would render the entire criminal case a nullity, there was no reason to disallow such a petition. In view of such, the order impugned is set aside with the direction to the Trial Court to notice the girl in - 2 - question within the next four weeks from the receipt of this order since her evidence would be essential for the just decision of the case. With these observations, the application is allowed. However, this order is being passed only on the assumption that the trial has not concluded up till now. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )