IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.658 of 2006 SARITA MISHRA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 6 15.4.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 19.5.2006, passed in Cr. Rev.No.150 (c ) of 2000 by the learned Magistrate, Munger, whereby he set aside the order dated 30.3.2006 passed by the S.D.J.M.,Munger, in the aforesaid Complaint Case No.150 ( c ) of 2000. The S.D.J.M., Munger, vide his aforesaid order date4d 30.3.2006 has allowed the petition of the complaint dated 20.2.2006 under section 311 of Cr.P.C. The facts of the case, in short, are as follows:- The complainant filed a case under section 498(A) and other allied sections of Cr.P.C. at the request of the complainant her evidence was closed on 8.11.2004. The statement was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the defence evidence was also closed on 30.11.2004. 2.12.2004 was the date fixed for argument. However, the complainant filed an application on 1.12.04 to exhibit some documents which was allowed. Thereafter he filed an application on 10.3.2005 under section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.1 ( himself) which was also allowed and the complainant was reexamined. Then complaint filed a petition, dated 17.5.2005 for amendment of charge which was rejected by both the trial court 2 as well as the revisional court vide order dated 5.7.05 and 6.2.06. Again a petition was filed on 20.2.2006 for examination of her father to prove some letters under section 311 of Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the trial court. The accused, Ajay Kumar Jha and ors. against order dated 20.2.06 preferred revision, being Cr.Rev.No.79/06. The learned Sessions Judge, Munger rejected the revision application on the ground that the complainant was frequently and repeatedly filing applications under section 311 of Cr.P.C., which is not permissible in law. It was further noticed that a decree of divorce had already been passed between the parties and complainant is deliberately trying to linger the litigations. The learned Sessions Judge while setting aside the order of the S.D.J.M., Munger, allowing the application under section 311 Cr.P.C., observed that the Hon’ble Court in the case of Keshaw Choudhary vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2000(3) PLJR 220, has held that the provision of section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to fill up lacuna or laches in prosecution case nor it be used as tool to harass the accused. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that it is necessary to examine her father and one last indulgence be permitted. It appears from impugned order of Revisional court that sufficient opportunity was already granted to the complainant. Even after examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., the prosecution side was granted indulgence under section 311 Cr.P.C. 3 to exhibit documents and examine complainant herself. Despite the aforesaid indulgence the complainant yet again filed another application under section 311 of Cr.P.C.. Such indulgence cannot be granted in a casual manner to a side which is not at all deligent in pursuing its prosecution. This provision is not a tool for either of the sides to cover its laches. As such this Court does not find any infirmity in order of Revisional court setting aside the order of trial court allowing application of opposite side under section 311 Cr.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the case this Court does not find any merit in this application and the same is dismissed. Anilkrsinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)