IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3542 of 2010 Meera Devi, wife of Raj Kishore Mandal, village Bijay Nagar, PS Bariyarpur, District Munger – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Pushpa Devi, wife of Manoj Kumar, 3) Gita Devi, wife of Jamadar Mandal, 4) Jamadar Mandal, son of Ghanshyam Mandal, 5) Sangita Devi, wife of Bairaji Mandal, 6) Sadhna Devi, wife of Dharmendra Mandal, 7) Nagina Singh, son of Sattu Singh, 8) Seema Devi, wife of Niro Mandal, 9) Uma Devi, wife of Narsingh Mandal, 10) Rukmini Devi, wife of Bairagi Mandal, 11) Manjula Devi, wife of Bhudeo Mandal, 12) Poonam Devi, wife of Manoj Mandal, 13) Tetri Devi, wife of Tarni Mandal, 14) Kunti Devi, wife of Mahesh Mandal, 15) Lalita Devi, wife of Polo Mandal, all of Bijay Nagar, PS Bariyarpur, District Munger – Opp. Parties. 3 5.5.2011 This application has been filed against the order, dated 26.8.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Munger in Criminal Revision No. 60/2009. The court had called upon the complainant to produce witnesses for framing of charge in Complaint Case No. 1321C/2007. The date for appearance of the witnesses was 21.8.2008. The next date fixed was 22.10.2008. On 22.10.2008 no witness appeared. Then the court fixed the case for 28.11.2008 and again no body appeared in the matter. Thereafter 15.11.2008 was fixed as the date for framing of charges. The complainant on 15.11.2008 filed a - 2 - petition under section 311 Cr.P.C. for three weeks’ time to produce the witnesses. The court allowed the prayer subject to payment of cost of Rs.1120/-. However, despite the time granted to the complainant, he was unable to produce any witness in support of his case as a result of which the accused persons were discharged. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is a very poor person and as such the court ought to have given time to produce witnesses. In this case I find that the court allowed three months’ time to the complainant by fixing different dates so that he should produce the witnesses. Other aspect of the matter is that out of fourteen accused persons, eleven are women. All the accused persons are labourers and they have been made accused in a case, where it is alleged, that they had intervened in a meeting being held and headed by the complainant and had taken away certain papers and documents. I, thus, find that there is no illegality in the order of the court. This application is dismissed. Haque (Sheema Ali Khan,J)