IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1757 of 2010 Manoj Kumar Mishra, son of Late Thakur Dayal Mishra, Mohalla Durgapur, PS Katihar (Town), District Katihar – petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sushil Chandra Choudhary, son of Late Mishrilal Choudhary, Mohalla Durgapur, PS and District Katihar – opp. parties. 2 28.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 31.3.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Katihar without hearing the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 181/2008. The facts are that the complainant was asked to produce witnesses at the stage of pre charge. The matter was first taken up for production of witnesses on 3.6.2005. Thereafter, at-least fifteen to twenty dates passed and three years lapsed but the complainant could not produce witnesses in support of his case. On 30.11.2007 the court, as a last chance, granted time to the complainant and closed the case on 22.5.2008. Thereafter, a petition was filed after a couple of days and the Judicial Magistrate gave the complainant an opportunity by order, dated 4.8.2008 to produce three witnesses on three consecutive dates. Again the complainant did not comply with the order of the court and failed to produce the witnesses in the case. The petitioner filed a petition that he may be discharged as he has been facing harassment in appearing for the past three years continuously on the dates fixed by the court whereas the complainant has taken no steps to produce witnesses in this case. Accordingly, the 2 court discharged the petitioner on the ground that the complainant had not been able to produce witnesses to prove his case and, therefore, prima facie no offence was made out against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order, dated 22.8.2008, the complainant went before the District Judge. The District Judge as per the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner without considering the materials stated in this order or without considering the conduct of the complainant has passed an order setting aside the order, dated 22.8.2008. I would have issued notice to the complainant-opposite party before passing appropriate order in this case. However, considering the fact that even if the opposite party was noticed, this order had to be quashed on the ground of non-compliance of principles of natural justice. To be fair to the complainant-opposite party, this court directs that the District Judge, Katihar may issue notice to the complainant and after hearing the opposite party and the petitioner pass an appropriate order taking into consideration the entire facts in this case. In the mean time the order, dated 31.3.2009 may be kept in abeyance which would necessarily mean that the Judicial Magistrate would not proceed with the complaint case. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)