IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47738 of 2008 Amla Khatoon, Daughter of Nasbullah Ansari, Resident of Village Lachhanauta, Bauha tola, PS Sathi in the distroct of West Champaran ---- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ---- Opposite Party ----------- 2 5.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed against the order dated 24.7.2008, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bettiah in Complaint Case No. 1593(C) of 2006 and order dated 25.8.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in Criminal Revision No. 151 of 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that orders impugned rejecting his complaint petition are not justified. The prosecution case is that the petitioners were demanding illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- for grant of Indira Awas. The complainant gave the money and thereafter she was called by the petitioners. It is alleged that they gave her some intoxicating substance and thereafter raped her. A complaint was instituted by the petitioner naming four persons as witnesses. 2 On examination under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the witnesses were those other than mentioned in the complaint petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has a right to examine witnesses of her choice who support her case. It is further submitted that she has mentioned “other witnesses” in the complaint petition. On the basis of the aforesaid facts petitioner submits that the witnesses produced on behalf of the complainant ought to have been rejected. On perusal of the complaint petition, this Court finds that the allegations made against the accused persons appear to be for mala fide reasons for the reason that the Indira Awas granted to a particular person is to a tune of Rs. 20,000/-. A demand of Rs. 10,000/- almost 50% of the amount is unheard of and is unreasonable, and as such, the story cannot be believed. Besides which the complainant has specifically stated that the witnesses named in the complaint petition had seen the accused persons running away from the place of occurrence. Under these circumstances, if the Court were to allow the 3 complainant to introduce new witnesses at the very initial stage, it would be a never ending process, which would facilitate the complainant to get witnesses of her choice, on the apprehension that the witnesses named in the complaint may not speak the truth. There must be good explanation given by the complainant for introducing a new witness which is lacking in this case. In my opinion such a procedure would amount to a misuse of the provisions of law which ought not to be allowed at the initial stage under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The concept of allowing the prosecution to examine witnesses of her choice, is a right given at the stage of trial. The prosecution may or may not examine some of the witnesses named in the charge sheet. This right cannot be extended at the very initial stage. As such, the courts below have rightly rejected the complaint. This application is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)