PRAHLAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this application the five F.I.R. named accused of Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2002 arising out of Haspur P.S. Case No. 46 of 2000, have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 8.3.2007 passed therein by the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No. -II, Aurangabad, whereby he has rejected the petition of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of prosecution witness nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 for their further cross -examination.

(2.) IT appears that Haspur P.S. Case No. 46 of 2000 was registered under Sections 341/323/324/307/379/448/34 I.P.C. on the basis of the written report submitted by one Subhash Chandra Pandey and after due investigation a charge -sheet thereunder was submitted. After commitment of the case, the trial was taken up and after a few prosecution witnesses had been examined, good sense appears to have prevailed on the parties at the intervention of common friends and well wishers and in view of the fact that the petitioners and the informant were co - villagers and several cases were pending between them, a compromise was entered into between the parties and in pursuance thereof the informant and the injured filed a petition before the trial court that they are eager to end the litigation and a separate petition was filed by the informant and the injured for permission to compromise the case. However, the petitions filed did not find favour with the trial court who allegedly in a very mechanical manner rejected the prayer made on behalf of the parties solely on the ground that it has simply been stated in the petition filed by the accused and the petitioners that the parties have entered into a compromise and on that score alone the witnesses examined cannot be recalled for their further cross -examination.

(3.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that for the ends of justice the trial court ought to have noticed the informant and the injured to verify the veracity of the compromise and permission to compromise the matter but the trial court instead of doing so and merely on the objections raised by the prosecutor rejected the prayer by the impugned order.