IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18380 of 2010 SHRI DEO NARAYAN JHA S/O LATE GHURAN JHA, R/O VILLAGE- SHRIKHANDI BHITHA, P.S.- SURSAND, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. ……………… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. KALI DEVI W/O SHRI DEO NARAYAN JHA, R/O VILLAGE- SHRIKHANDI BHITHA, P.S.- SURSAND AND DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. ……………….Opposite Parties ----------- 2. 28.01.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 25.01.2010 passed by S.D.J.M., Pupari at Sitamarhi in Complaint Case No. C-169/06, T.R. no. 494/09, by which an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused has been refused. On going through the order impugned, I find that the statement of the accused person was recorded on 8.6.2007, on which date an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the complainant to examine witness Anjani Kumar, which was rejected after hearing both the parties on 31.7.2007, and the case was fixed for argument of the defence on 5.10.2007. Since then the case has been kept pending. It appears that even on 12.1.2010 no attendance of any defence witness was filed and only a petition stating therein the names 11 witnesses was filed without assigning any reason for their examination. Since the petition dated 12.01.2010 shows that the examination of these witnesses was essential for the just decision of the case, the application evidently was unjustly refused. In view of such one opportunity should be given to the defence, if the case has not concluded by now but only if the Magistrate is satisfied that the examination of these witnesses was essential for the just decision of the case. In which case he shall grant two months time from the receipt of this order for examination of such witnesses. With these observations, the application is disposed off. Fahad. ( Anjana Prakash, J. )