IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.660 of 2009 RAJENDRA SINGH @ RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH PANCHYAT SEWAK, GRAM PANCHAYAT- BANDHU JAY RAM, BLOCK- PIRPAITTI, P.S. PIRPAITTI, DISTRICT- BHGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MOST. SHAHIDA KHATOON, W/O LATE SAMSUDDIN, VILL- KHANPUR, P.S. PIRPAITTI, DIST. BHGALPUR ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER………………… MR.UPENDRA PRATAP SINGH. ADV. FOR THE STATE…………… MR. R. ROY. Adv. 3 10.12.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.01.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bhagalpur in complaint case no. 604(C) of 2002, whereby the application dated 19.03.2008 filed on behalf of the complainant under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been considered and allowed with certain conditions i.e., imposition of cost of 100. It appears, learned trial court has found that the accused were also at default as one of them did not present himself before the Court leading to cancellation of bail and issuance of non-bailable warrant. It has also delayed the proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing, the order submits that the prosecution in the present case has become persecution, in view of the fact that since 2002, the matter is pending. Adequate opportunity was granted to the prosecution but it failed to produce any witness, as a result whereof the evidence of the prosecution was closed on 02.02.2008, whereafter the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C was filed. Learned trial court in the impugned order has 2 considered the facts emanating from the records. It has taken into consideration the fact that complainant was widow and had to travel a long way to the Court for prosecution. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, learned trial court found it expedient to allow the said application on imposition of cost. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order. While upholding the impugned order, this Court directs that the complainant be informed and granted three dates/opportunities within a period of 45 days to produce her evidence. In case, the complainant fails to produce witnesses on her behalf, the evidence of the prosecution shall be closed and the court below shall proceed to dispose of the case. The application is disposed of. Amrendra ( K. K. Mandal, J.)