IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13549 of 2009 Man Mohan Singh, son of Late Raghunath Singh, resident of Mohalla- Gannipur (Chaturbhuj Thakur Marg), P.O.- Ramna, P.S.- Kazimohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Raja Prasad Singh, son of Late Badrinarain Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Aawas Nagar Road No. 2, P.O.- M.I.T., P.S. Brahmapura, District- Muzaffarpur. …….Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 24. 01. 2011. Heard. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19. 02. 2009, passed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Criminal Revision No. 27/2009, by which he has dismissed the revision petition confirming the order dated 18. 11. 2008 of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Muzaffarpur, in Trial No. 1789/2009, by which a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed. 2. From the record itself shows that a criminal case was instituted for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and in the complaint case cognizance was taken and after taking cognizance process was issued against the accused persons. The prosecution case was closed and the statement of the accused person was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 3. However, subsequently, a petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was filed stating therein that 2 some questions could not be asked from witnesses as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and hence a prayer was made calling the witnesses for further cross-examination. However, the said prayer was rejected and stated that witnesses were examined in the year 2007 itself and case was closed even statement of the accused person has already recorded on 07. 05. 2008 and even the case was fixed for defence on 20. 06. 2008 and 26. 07. 2008, but no witness could be produced and plea was taken that petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was filed only to delay in disposal of the case and hence rejected the petition. 4. However, a revision was preferred against that order and the Sessions Judge also rejected the revision petition on the ground that defence has not been able to make out the case for recalling of witnesses and hence the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly dismissed the petition filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, challenged the order of revisional court as well as order of the Judicial Magistrate and submits that at the interest of justice witnesses are required to be re- examined. 6. However, in the petition before this Court itself even the complainant in para 6 of the petition 3 stated that some relevant questions on material fact and point regarding issuing of cheque were not asked from the aforesaid two material witnesses which will be essential to just decision of the case. 7. However, a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., but the petition did not disclose the question required to be asked from the witnesses namely P.W.1 and P.W. 2 and hence did not makes out a case that what was required to be asked which could not be asked to allow the petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice. Hence, petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is quite vague that some question is to be asked, but does not make out what is required to ask as petitioner does not mention the specific question required to be asked to the witnesses. Hence, the District Judge has rightly observed that defence has not been able to make out the case for recalling of witnesses. 8. Hence, I do not find any merit to interfere with the impugned order. However, if the petitioner files a petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. with specific question required to be asked and if such petition is filed then the court below itself consider it and disposed in accordance with law considering the questions are required to be asked from witnesses in the interest of justice. 4 9. With the above observations/directions, the petition is hereby dismissed. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)