IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.28571 OF 2009 1. AFTAB AHMAD @ MD.AFTAB, SON OF LATE NOORUDDIN AHMAD 2. KAISAR JAHAN @ DOLLI, WIFE OF FAHIMUDDIN 3. FAHIMUDDIN, SON OF SYED NAYEEMUDDIN HAIDER 4. MUMTAZ ARA BEGUM, WIFE OF LATE NOORUDDIN AHMAD 5. DAISY, DAUGHTER OF LATE NOORUDDIN AHMAD ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HAROON NAGAR, SECTOR NO. 2, POLICE STATION PHULWARISHARIF, DISTRICT PATNA …………………………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SANOBAR JAHAN, WIEFE OF AFTAB AHMAD, DAUGHTER OF ABDUL MOGANI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARGAWAN, POLICE STATION SARE, DISTRICT NALANDA ………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********* 9 20/05/2010 The explanation given by Shri Ajit Kumar, the Officiating Incharge, Shastrinagar Police Station is accepted. This matter has come before this Court on several occasions. Apparently, the lady in question does not want to compromise the matter and wishes to pursue her rights. Earlier, the petitioner had moved this Court for transfer of Asthanwan Police Station Case No. 184 of 2001. This Court by order dated 10.10.2003 had rejected the application. The main ground for challenge is that the Court hearing the matter would not have the jurisdiction to hear the case. This point may be raised on behalf of the petitioner at the time of trial. Apparently, the lady in question has been avoiding the Court, however, testing the patience of this 2 Court, she has appeared today only to say that she does not want to compromise the case. It is submitted on her behalf that the trial has commenced and witnesses have been examined. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he had not the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and has filed an application for recall of the witnesses, which is pending before the Trial Court. The Trial Court is advised to consider the application at the earliest if the petitioner can show the Court that there was adequate reason for non- examination of the witnesses at the stage they were produced, the petitioner would have the opportunity to cross-examine them before closure of the evidence. Since it has been stated at the bar that the evidence has closed, I am not inclined to quash the entire First Information Report of Asthawan Police Station Case No. 184 of 2001. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)