IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3717 of 1999 CHANDRA PRAKASH BHUIYA s/o LATE LALTA PRASAD BHUIYA, R/O MOHALLA- CHHOTEKAZIPUR,PS. KOTWALI,DISTRICT- GORAKHPUR (U.P.), WORKING AS CHIEF TELECOMMUNICATION INSPECTOR, N.E. RLY., GORAKHPUR ( U.P. )………………………………………….. PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRTATE- KATIHAR ( BIHAR ). 2. SMT. SHAKUNTALA W/O SHRI SANTOSH SAH ( SON OF SHRI GOPAL SAH R/O VILL. TENDUNI, P.S. CHENARI,DISTT. SASARAM, BIHAR), WHO IS THE FIRST HUSBAND AND SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ( S/O RUDRA PRATAP, VILL- IBRAHIMPUR, P.S. PAWAI, DISTT. AZAMGARH,UP.), WHO IS THE SECOND HUSBAND AND D/O SHRI JAMUNA PRASAD SAH ( R/O) VILL- KHURMABAD, P.S. CHENARI, DISTT. SASARAM, BIHAR) AT PRESENT RESIDING WITH SHRI VISHVANATH PARMANIK, ADVOCATE, GURUDWARA ROAD 9 NEAR HARDYAL TALKIES), KATIHAR, ( BIHAR ).. OPP. PARTIES. ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER:- MR. BINOD KR. SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE :- MR. AMRENDRA PRASAD, APP. ---------- 6 23-4-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Nobody has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 who has filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as ` the Cde’.) pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist. Class, Katihar. 2. On behalf of petitioner it has been submitted that the proceeding under section 125 of the Code which was initiated in the year 1992 is a mala fide proceeding and opposite party no.2 has falsely claimed to be wife of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that opposite party no.2 is interested in delaying the proceeding and the court below acted with bias and mala fide in not permitting the petitioner to adduce approximately 10 more 2 witnesses in the year 1999 when the opposite party no.2 had completed the examination of her witnesses by producing four witnesses. It is not in dispute that on behalf of petitioner nine witnesses have already been examined. 3. It appears that this application was filed in the year 1999 with a prayer to quash the proceeding under section 125 of the Code on the ground that it is mala fide and vexatious proceeding. For some reason this application has remained pending for more than a decade and the proceedings in the court below have also remained stayed. 4. If the submissions on behalf of petitioner are considered, this Court would be called upon to give finding on several issues, many of which relate to issues of facts. In exercise of power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure this court is not persuaded to undertake such exercise particularly when the learned Magistrate could not get an opportunity to conclude the proceeding and pass any order on merits. It may be mentioned here that earlier an ex parte order under section 125 Cr.P.C. was passed against the petitioner in the year 1992 and when opposite party no.2 prayed for execution of that order in 1994. Petitioner took steps and ex parte order was set aside in the year 1995. 5. Considering the broad feature of the case and the contention advanced on behalf of petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that after so many years the Presiding Officer of 3 the court has definitely been transferred and there is no need to keep the matter pending in this court on the ground of bias on the part of the Presiding Officer. This Court is inclined to indicate a reasonable time within which the Magistrate must conclude the proceeding in accordance with law and pass a final order. 6. On behalf of petitioner it has been submitted that petitioner has to examine large number of witnesses and summoning those witnesses may take a long period and for that sufficient time should be granted. In my view, if such is the request made, then the court below must exercise due caution and not permit a summary proceeding being converting into a protracted civil trial. A period of four months would be a reasonable period to require the petitioner to produce his remaining witnesses, if any. Thereafter the court below should conclude the hearing and pass final order without any delay and in any case within a further period of four weeks. It is made clear that this court has not gone into the merits of the case of either of the parties and this order shall not prejudice either of the parties. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)