IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42110 of 2008 Vishwanath Tiwary, son of Late Gopal Prasad Tiwary, village Bishunpur, Jeev Narain, PS Paroo, district Muzaffarpur – petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Mahesh Tiwary, son of Late Gopal Tiwary, 3. Shyam Kishore Tiwary, son of Mahesh Tiwary, 4. Maheshwar Tiwary, son of Baldeo Singh, 5. Ravindra Singh, son of Deonandan Singh, 6. Birendra Singh, son of Jageshwar Singh, all of Bishunpur Jeev Narain, PS Paroo, district Muzaffarpur – opp. parties. 2 7.1.2010 This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 8.8.2008 passed by the Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Cr. Revision No. 195/2006 and the order, dated 18.10.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in Paroo PS Case No. 90/1992. An application was filed on behalf of the informant under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that he may be permitted to examine one Anil Kumar Ojha as a witness on the ground that all the other witnesses including the injured witnesses have turned hostile in this case. The court has granted time on 20.4.2006 after passing a long and speaking order. After the grant of time several dates were fixed on 16.5.2006 and 16.6.2006 for production of this witness. Anil Kumar Ojha did not appear on the aforesaid two dates. The witness appeared on 18.7.2006. On that date it is said that a petition was filed in which it was stated that the parties were going to enter into compromise. The next date fixed in the case was 18.8.2006. On that date again the witnesses did not appear. On that date a joint petition was filed for adjournment. On 21.9.2006 2 evidence was closed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is essential that he may be permitted to examine Anil Kumar Ojha as according to him he would be able to prove the prosecution case. The court below has granted sufficient time for examination of Anil Kumar Ojha and I do not think it is proper to allow the informant to prolong the trial which is pending since 1992. In any event the examination of Anil Kumar Ojha is aimed at meeting the lacunae in the prosecution case which cannot be a ground for granting permission for examination of the aforesaid witness at this stage. I, thus, find no illegality in the orders impugned. This application is dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)