SHIV KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) invoking its inherent powers for quashing the order dated 10.6.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 204 of 2011, arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 299 of 2010, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Begusarai, whereby in exercise of his powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. he has summoned two witnesses, namely, Ramashray Singh and his wife Sita Devi for their examination as court witnesses. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased Dezy Devi and is facing criminal prosecution for offences under Sections 304-B/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, as he is alleged to have killed his wife for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry within seven years of their marriage.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that prayer for bail made on behalf of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court as he is said to be the main culprit, but by order dated 8.8.2012 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16122 of 2012 vide Annexure-4 while considering the prayer for bail of the petitioner this Court had directed the learned trial court to take up the trial of the petitioner preferably on day-to-day basis so that there is no further delay in trial. It is contended that in the light of the aforesaid order, evidence on behalf of the prosecution was closed. Defence evidence was also closed and case was fixed for judgment on 10.6.2013. However, the learned trial court on 10.6.2013 in arbitrary exercise of his powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. directed for summoning two witnesses, referred to above, for their examination as court witnesses. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order dated 10.6.2013 is contrary to scheme and mandate of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and this order has been passed by the learned trial court only with a view to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution case. Therefore, according to him, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is not sustainable in law and is fit to be quashed by this Court. In support of his above contention, he has placed reliance on judgments of this Court in the cases of Surendra Choudhary vs. State of Bihar, 2006 4 PLJR 147), Ranjay Pandey vs. State of Bihar,2012 2 BLJ 285), Karu Rawani vs. State of Bihar, 2013 1 PLJR 175), Lal Ji Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2013 2 PLJR 483), and Munna Singh vs. State of Bihar,2013 4 PLJR 447).

(3.) Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar has stoutly opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner in the present application and has supported the impugned order. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the judgments cited by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, referred to above, are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He has submitted that as a matter of fact the aforesaid two witnesses are not sought to be examined at the behest of the prosecution or the informant, rather they are sought to be examined as court witnesses for unfolding the truth and for a just decision of the criminal case pending against the petitioner. In support of his above contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.T. of Dadra & Nagar Haveli vs. Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, 2006 7 SCC 529 .