IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36663 of 2009 GIRIJESH KUMAR TRIPATHI, SON OF LATE SHEO SHANKAR TRIPATHI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AHIRAULI, P.O. ARJUN DUMARI, P.S. HATTA, DISTRICT KUSHINAGAR (UTTAR PRADESH). ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ANSU DEVI, DAUGHTER OF BIR BAHADUR PRASAD @ BIRAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAKHARI, P.S. KUCHAIKOT, DISTRICT GOPAJGANJ. ----------- 2 16.11.2009 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is not his wife. This aspect of the matter was first raised by the petitioner while moving his anticipatory bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a school teacher and is near the age of the retirement. He has a son who is now Company Secretary and he was married as far back as in 1974 to some other lady. The order indicates that the application to recall witnesses was dismissed on 20.5.2008 and thereafter the petitioner’s counsel appeared but could not give evidence in this case. After the order, allowing to cross examine the prosecution witnesses, about a year has lapsed. The petitioner kept appearing in Court through his counsel which would be apparent from the certified copy of the order sheet which the counsel for the petitioner has produced in Court. The order sheet reveals that opportunities were given to the petitioner to produce witnesses on 26.5.2008, 3.6.2008, 27.6.2008, 2.8.2008, 8.9.2008, 23.10.2008, 18.11.2008 and 18.11.2008. However, he failed to produce the witnesses on the date next fixed which was 3.12.2008. Thereafter again opportunity was given to him on 18.12.2008, 6.2.2009, 4.3.2009, 13.3.2009, 1.5.2009, 25.5.2009, 17.6.2009, 4.7.2009, 24.7.2009 and 29.7.2009 but still no steps were taken by the petitioner to produce his witnesses in support of his contentions. On 4.8.2009 the Court has noted that the application was filed on behalf of petitioner to permit him to cross examine witnesses which was rejected. On 11.8.2009 the petitioner was asked specifically to produce his own witnesses. It would appear from the order sheet that in fact that matter was pending for a long time and the Court granted opportunity to the petitioner for cross examining the prosecution witnesses time and again which were not availed by the petitioner. Finally, on 20.8.2009 when the petitioner did not produce any witnesses in support of his contention the Court fixed the date for argument. After the case was fixed for argument, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner praying therein that he may be given an opportunity to examine his witnesses. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in fact only one date was given by the Court below and thereafter the case was fixed for hearing, and as such the petitioner in fact did not get sufficient time and opportunity to produce witnesses on his behalf. I find that the petitioner has kept the case pending for almost a year and the Court has been kind enough to grant him time to cross examine prosecution witnesses even after close of the prosecution case. The petitioner did not avail the opportunity. In the circumstances, I do not find that this is a case where the Court can indefinitely grant time to a person who is deliberately delaying the proceedings and not co-operating with the Court for disposal of the case. I find no anomaly in the order dated 10.9.2009. This quashing application is dismissed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, j.)