HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) BOTH the cases (Cr. Rev. No. 341/2003 and Cr. M.P. No. 1072/2003) are being disposed of by this common order because in both the cases, common question 'sof law and facts are involved.
(2.) THE Cr MP No. 1072 of 2003 has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 11.7.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 150 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the learned Court below closed the evidence of the prosecution ignoring the facts that Cr, Revision No. 341 of 2003 is pending before the High Court, whereas Cr. Revision No. 341 of 2003 has been filed under Sec. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 25.7.2002 passed in S.T. No. 150 of 2002 whereby and where under the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh rejected the petition dated 19.7.2002 filed by the lawyer of the petitioner under Sec.319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning the opposite parties No. 2 and To face trial as their names appear in the evidence adduced by the learned Court below. 3 Facts leading To the filing of both the petitions are that petitioner -revisionist Lalmani Devi had filed a case being Giddi P.S. Case No. 66 of 1993 under Sec.302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, (IPC) against Jaipal Bedia, O.P. No. 4 in Cr. M.P. No. 1072 of 2003 and others. Thereafter investigation was taken up and after investigation the I.O. submitted charge sheet in the case under Sections 302/201, Indian Penal Code against Jaipal Bedia. It is further stated that during trial of the case in Sessions Trial No. 150 of 2002 before the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, prosecution witness No. 1 and 2 namely Suresh Bedia and Rupan Bedia deposed before the learned Court below and these witnesses very categorically stated that on the last day i.e. 28.9.1993 when the deceased was seen, they had seen him with the opposite party No. 2 and 3 at about 8.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. respectively. PW 1 Suresh Bedia has even stated that he asked Lal Mohan Bedia, the deceased To come along with him, but the opposite party No. 2 and 3 Told him that they will drop him. He further stated that he moved Towards office of M.C.C. where he saw Jaipal Bedia also and all of them were telling deceased To deposit the amount of donation money in the office of M.C.C. Further, PW2, has stated that he finally saw the deceased going on his Bullet moTorcycle along with O.P. No. 2 and 3. It is further stated that keeping in mind the above mentioned facts, the informant filed application before the learned Court below under Sec.391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning the opposite party No. 2 and 3 and the learned Court below rejected the application of the informant on 25.7.2002 and when the petitioner - informant filed a Cr. Revision No. 341 of 2003 against the aforesaid order dated 25.7.2002, which is pending in the High Court, the learned Court below ignoring this fact closed the case and, therefore, the quashing application has been filed for quashing the order 11.7.2003.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that charge sheet in the case was submitted against Jaipal Bedia and he was on bail and, therefore, the Court was not in hurry to dispose of the case when the criminal revision No. 341 of 2002 for setting aside the order rejecting the prayer to summon the witnesses i.e. O.P. No. 2 and 3, was pending. It was further submitted that the learned Court below should have considered that in the interest of justice and for just decision of the case, it should have waited for the decision of the High Court. It was also pointed out that the court should have considered that when some persons are required for their prosecution in the case and when no prejudice was going to be caused to the accused persons against whom charge sheet had been submitted, then in that case great prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the order of the learned Court below is bad in law.;