IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.822 of 2006 BRAJESH MISHRA @ BRAJESH KUMAR MISHRA, Son of Sri Nirmal Kumar Mishra, Resident of Village Tagepur P.O. & P.S. Jagdishpur, District Bhagalpur, At present residing at Near Barauni Junction, P.O. Barauni, P.S. Phulwaria, District- Begusarai. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Gauri Shankar Mishra, Son of Kuldeep Narain Mishra 3. Satyanarain Mishra son of Kuldeep Narain Mishra 4. Subodh Kumar Mishra Son of Satyanarain Mishra 5. Subhash Kumar Mishra son of Gauri Shankar Mishra All resident of village Tagepur, P.O. & P.S. Jagdishpur, District- Bhagalpur. . . . . . . Opposite Parties. ----------- 6/ 18.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner pays for quashing the order dated 06.12.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in Jagdishpur P.S. case no. 214 of 1997, whereby he rejected the petition filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., as well as order dated 20.06.2000 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur. The informant instituted the instant case in the year 1997, under Sections 341, 323, 504, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It would appear from the impugned order that charges were framed on 19.06.2001. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order dated 06.12.2005, rejecting the petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., for examination of informant, doctor and investigating officer, is bad in law. He submits that in fact summons were not received by them. Learned counsel submits that the accused persons have - 2 - filed a compromise petition, as contained in Annexure-3, and signature on the compromise petition seems to be forged. In the instant application, the petitioner has also challenged the order dated 20.06.2000, whereby cognizance has been taken against Subhash Kumar Mishra and Subodh Kumar Mishra under Sections 341, 323, 504, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It would appear from the impugned order that charges were framed on 19.06.2001. The complainant himself appeared on 16.08.2004 through Vakalatnama, still he has not cared to have himself examined. It would further appear from the impugned order that bailable warrant of arrest has been issued and after waiting for five years, the evidence of the prosecution was closed and even statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the accused persons were recorded, thereafter the instant application has been filed. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid order taking of second cognizance is bad, as the court by order dated 16.07.1998 had taken cognizance only against accused Gauri Shankar Mishra and Satya Narayan Mishra. I will take up the second point raised by the petitioner first. The challenge to the impugned order dated 20.06.2000 is to be rejected for two reasons. Firstly; the petitioner has belatedly challenged the impugned order dated 20.06.2000 in the year 2006. Secondly; the aggrieved persons namely Subhash Kumar Mishra - 3 - and Subodh Kumar Mishra, who could be aggrieved by the aforesaid order have not challenged the same. Furthermore, the court while taking cognizance on 20.06.2000 stated in the order- sheet that by mistake, the name of some persons were not corporated in the order-sheet, though charge-sheet was also submitted against them. For the reasons stated above, this Court rejects the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 20.06.2000. So far as the other prayer of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 06.12.2005, rejecting his application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, this Court notices that the case is of the year, 1997. The charges were framed on 19.06.2001 and Bailable Warrants were issued to the witnesses. The informant himself appeared through Vakalatnama on 06.08.2004. The statements of the accused persons have already been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter the instant application has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if one chance is granted to him, he will examine all the concerned witnesses within a specified time. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and plea of the petitioner, this Court by way of last indulgence grants one final chance to the informant to produce all witnesses within a month from today. In case, he fails to bring witnesses, the trial court would not grant adjournment and would proceed with the - 4 - matter and dispose of the case at the earliest. This order is subject to deposit a sum of Rs. 500/- by the informant, which would be credited towards the Legal Aid Service in the district. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)