IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25773 of 2008 BHUSHAN RAI, SON OF LATE RADHA RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOLHRAMPUR, P.S. BARHARA IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR, PRESENTLY RESIDING IN MOHALLA UTTARPARA (MEKALA) P.S. UTTAR PARA IN THE DISTRICT OF HUGALI (WEST BENGAL). ------- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BANSHI RAI 3. MITLAL RAI 4. UCHIT RAI 5. YAGU RAI 6. RAM SURAT RAI, ALL SONS OF LATE DOMA RAI 7. SUDAMA RAI, SON OF MUNESHWAR RAI 8. 8. SUDARSHAN RAI, SON OF MUNESHWAR RAI. 9. DIWAKAR RAI, SON OF UDAY RAI. 10. CHINTA RAI, SON OF RAMDAS RAI 11. KAMLA RAI, SON OF LATE RAMA LAL RAI 12. RAMJEE RAI, SON OF LATE SITAL RAI. 13. LAV RAI, SON OF RAMJEE RAI 14. JODHAN RAI, SON OF BANSHI RAI. 15. GHOGHI RAI, SON OF RAM UCHIT RAI. 16. JODHA RAI, SON OF LATE DHODHA RAI ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KOLRAMPUR, P.S. BARHARA, DISTT. BHOJPUR. ------ OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 3. 05.05.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 29.3.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara, in Criminal Revision No. 25 of 2008 by which it has affirmed the order dated 24.11.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ara, in Trial No. 72 of 2008. The background facts of the case are that the petitioner had instituted a case under Section 307 and allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code on 12.6.2002 but subsequently, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 341, 323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the Magistrate 2 accordingly, took cognizance. Summons were issued on witnesses on 13.1.2003, warrants of arrest were issued on 17.8.2004 despite which between 12.11.2003 to 11.7.2007 i.e. near about four years, no witness turned up. Thereafter, the Court fixed the case for examination of the accused person under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and the statement was recorded on 27.9.2007, whereafter a petition was filed on 11.10.2007 by the Informant to reopen the case. The same was disallowed since the Court was of the view that enough opportunity had been given to prosecute the case despite which the Informant had not taken any steps in that regard and in fact, wanted to protract the trial unnecessarily. By the time, the Revisional Order came to be passed about six years had elapsed and today more than nine years later, this Court is asked to permit the Informant to reopen the case. Considering that it could not be in the interest of justice to further subject the accused persons to the trauma of protracted the trial in a case in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 341, 323 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The application is dismissed. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)