. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14019 of 2007 AMBIKA PRASAD GUPTA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 11.9.2008 Heard M/s M.S.Madhup and Ashok Kumar, learned counsels for the petitioner, Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, learned counsel for O.P.No. 2 and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner has prayed for the quashing of order dated 12.3.2007 passed by Sri S.K.Roy, learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Madhepura, in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 2003 whereby the application filed by the petitioner and a few others under section 311 Cr.P.C. read with section 231 Cr.P.C. for issuance of summons to some of the witnesses including the I.O. whose evidence was essential for a just decision in the case was rejected. As would appear from the impugned order, the reason for rejecting the application which weighed with the court was that there was no necessity for examining the complainant of Complaint Case No. 706C of 1999 and Sanha entry no. 33 of 1999 as they had no bearing on the instant trial and that the application had been filed only with the purpose of delaying the case. Both the complaint petition and the Sanha entry happen to be the earliest documents in respect of the alleged occurrence and have given out different versions of the occurrence. In that sense they - 2 - would be relevant facts in issue. Similarly, the I.O. being an important witness and his objective findings being of great importance to the merits of the case, interest of justice calls for a summons to be issued to him. In the result the impugned order is quashed and the application is allowed. The petitioner will file a fresh petition before the Court giving reasons for the necessity of such examination and on such petition being filed the learned court will dispose of the same by a speaking order in accordance with law. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)