IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14666 of 2008 ***** Ramjee Singh, S/o Late Basudeo Singh, resident of village- Itahari, P.S. Naya Ram Nagar, District-Munger. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Subhash Singh, S/o Late Sahdeo Singh; 3. Ashok Singh, S/o Late Sahdeo Singh; 4. Sada Nand Singh, S/o Late Sahdeo Singh; 5. Manoj Singh, S/o Sri Mahadeo Singh; 6. Sanjay Singh, S/o Sikandar Singh; 7. Mahadeo Singh, S/o Late Dwarika Singh; 8. Kapildeo Singh, S/o Late Dwarika Singh; 9. Rajeshwar Singh, S/o not known All resident of village- Itahari, P.S. Naya Ram Nagar, District-Munger. …. …. Opposite parties ----------- 2. 20.4.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel representing the opposite parties and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The origin of the present case is an F.I.R. instituted way back in the year 1992, though initially for the so-called offence committed by the accused persons substantive offence under various sections were registered by the police but ultimately charge-sheet came to be submitted only under Section 379. The trial thereafter has proceeded and has dragged on all these years and not culminated so far. The proceeding has dragged on for one reason or the other, some of which has been because the petitioner has decided to come to the High Court at many stages or challenge each and every order passed by the trial Court. This time the petitioner has filed the present application because the learned Judicial Magistrate has decided to close the trial and has issued direction for taking statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that many a - 2 - witnesses have not appeared or have not been compelled enough to appear in the matter and it is going to have serious repercussions on the fairness of trial against the accused persons. Except for three witnesses, who were examined initially way back in the year 1995, nothing was done by the trial Court to secure presence of the other witnesses (official). It was in the background of the above statement that the Court directed the petitioner to file the entire order-sheet which has been filed today after due service on the counsel for the opposite parties. Learned counsel representing the private opposite parties submits that the stand taken by the petitioner on the earlier date does not seem to be borne out from the order-sheet. There are enough indications to show that the steps have been taken by the trial Court and it is basically the petitioner who does not want the trial to conclude and only to keep the issue alive has filed the present petition further delaying the conclusion of trial and there is no other object neither is there any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 7.3.2008. The stand of the opposite parties in this regard seems to be correct to some extent because the order-sheet does reflect that various steps have been taken and to that extent the petitioner’s contention that the Court has not been vigilant enough or assertive enough in procuring the witnesses is not correct. This Court is of the considered opinion that looking at the substantive offence alleged and the time frame when the case was initially filed 15 years is a long enough time for any trial and that too of an offence under Section 379 to reach its finality. In the above circumstances the - 3 - Court is not inclined to interfere with the order which will only have the effect of further delaying the trial of the case. No case for interference is made out. The quashing application stands dismissed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)