Uma Yadav And ORS. v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19611 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -70 Year- 2008 Thana -KATEYA District- GOPALGANJ ======================================================

1. Uma Yadav. Son of Late Ramadhar Yadav.

2. Raj Kishore Yadav. Son of Late Phulena Yadav.

3. Raju Yadav. Son of Raj Kishore Yadav. All resident of village - Rampur Kala, P.S.- Kateya, District - Gopalganj.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Banka Bhagat. Son of Late Budhan Bhagat. Resident of village - Rampur Kala, P.S.- Kateya, District - Gopalganj.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suresh Prasad Bhakta For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Mayanand Jha(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-05-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No. 70 of 2008 corresponding to trial No. 4815 of 2015. Despite the lapse of over six years and 11 months from the date of institution of the first information report no witness on behalf of the prosecution has been examined during trial.

It has been contended that the aforesaid case was registered on 19th of May 2008 for the offences punishable under

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19611 of 2015 (2) dt.11-05-2015 2/3 sections 341,323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of investigation the police submitted charge sheet on 31.05.2008. The substance of accusation was explained to the accused persons on 08.06.2012 and since then several adjournments were granted by the court for producing witnesses on behalf of the prosecution but till date no witness has come forward to depose. It has been contended that the offences alleged are petty in nature and the petitioners are facing rigor of trial for the last six years and there is no likelihood of its conclusion in near future. On the other hand learned counsel for the prosecution seeks four months time for producing its witnesses He contended that in case the prosecution fails to produce its witnesses within four months the court below may be directed to close the prosecution case.

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the submission made by the respective counsel for the parties, I direct the prosecution to produce all its witnesses within four months from today, failing which the learned Judicial Magistrate ist Class, Gopalganj shall close the prosecution case and proceed to the next stage of the case.

With the aforesaid observation and direction this

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19611 of 2015 (2) dt.11-05-2015 3/3 application is disposed of.

The order shall be communicated to the court below forthwith.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) M.Rahman/- U T