IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8790 of 2010 VIKRAM PRASAD SINGH, son of Late Ramchandra Prasad Singh, resident of village- Athari, P. S. Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi. … Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 31.03.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Petitioner, complainant of complaint case No. CI-44/98 is aggrieved by an order of the court below dated 14.1.2010 whereby his prayer made way back in the year 2007 for examining two of the witnesses named in the complaint petition has been rejected primarily on account of such prayer being quite delayed. There is no difficulty in accepting the proposition of law advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that he in capacity of complainant had a right to get a trial conducted even if its trial was being together with a trial arising out of Runnisaidpur P. S. Case No. 10 of 1998 both relating to same occurrence. There is also no difficulty in accepting the submission of counsel for the petitioner that his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded only in the trial of the aforementioned police case and as such he in complainant 2 cannot be deprived to prove his case. In the opinion of this Court the complainant petitioner cannot be shut out from establishing his case which was as noted above is being tried together with the police case. Infact it also does not augur well in the ends of administration of justice that complainant’s witnesses should be precluded from their being examined by the trial court. The plea of delay also in the facts and circumstances of this case would also not be fatal for examination of the witnesses of the complainant specially when the trial court itself has taken a period of more than 2 years only in passing the impugned order on such application of the complainant. If the court had failed to consider such prayer at appropriate time, the complainant petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Learned counsel for the State is also not in a position to defend the impugned order passed by learned magistrate inasmuch as no justifiable reasons can be culled out from the impugned order rejecting a genuine prayer of the complainant-petitioner for examination of his two witnesses. Considering all these aspects, the impugned order dated 14.1.2010 is set aside with a direction to the 3 trial court to ensure that the two named witnesses in the complaint petition of the complainant namely Uma Prasad Singh and Digvijay Kumar are examined before the court would proceed to hear the arguments of both the cases. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner does not avail the opportunity of adducing evidence on the date fixed by the trial court his evidence shall be closed whereafter, the arguments of the case shall proceed for disposal of both the cases. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)