BIPIN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE informant of Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 123 of 2004, arising out of Complaint Case No. 462. of 2004 has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 21.11.2006 passed therein by Sri Upendra Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sitamarhi, whereby he has rejected the petitioner 'sprayer to examine those witnesses as were named by him in the complaint but whose name did not figure in the list of prosecution witnesses as given in the charge -sheet. The reasons for the rejection, as would appear from the impugned order, were on the twin grounds of the petition not being filed by the prosecution and secondly, of the petitioner not raising any objection, after the submission of charge -sheet regarding non -examination of his witnesses by the police in course of investigation or their not figuring as witnesses in the charge -sheet.

(2.) THE complainant, Bipin Kumar, the petitioner herein, filed the aforesaid complaint petition on 17.5.2004 alleging commission of offences under Sections 323, 341, 447, 379, 504 l.P.C. at the hands of the three accused named therein at about 8 A.M. on 30.4.2004. The said complaint was transmitted to the concerned P.S. under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on the basis thereof the aforesaid Runnisaidpur P.S. case was registered under the same sections. The police after due investigation submitted a charge -sheet whereafter the trial was taken up. The grievance of the petitioner is two fold: firstly, that he being the complainant of the complaint case out of which the instant trial originated, he was competent to maintain the petition on the failure of the public prosecutor failing to take proper steps to get all the witnesses examined at the trial and secondly, that although the police had examined all the witnesses named in the complaint in course of investigation, yet their names did not figure in the charge -sheet as prosecution witnesses which was a detriment to the prosecution 'scause.

(3.) WHILE accepting the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding his competency to maintain the petition in the event of the prosecutor failing to take steps for examination of all necessary witnesses, I have my reservations regarding the second contention. While the petitioner has taken the plea that all the witnesses named by him in the complaint petition had been examined by the police in course of investigation, the impugned order discloses a situation which is contrary thereto. According to the impugned order, the witnesses sought to be examined at the trial named in the complaint petition were not examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C.