Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.S. Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5.
(2.) In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 09.12.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, in T.R. No. 2379 of 2013, corresponding to Complaint Case No. 1662 of 2008 whereby and where under the application preferred by the petitioner u/s 311 of the Cr. P.C. has been rejected.
(3.) It appears that the petitioner is the complainant who has filed a complaint case against the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 for the offence punishable u/s 448, 420, 421, 379, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. After conducting an inquiry u/s 202 of the Cr. P.C. cognizance was taken u/s 379, 323, 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Since after charge was framed the complainant did not produce his witnesses for a considerable length of time, the evidence of the complainant was closed on 11.07.2013. Subsequent thereto an application was filed u/s 311 of the Cr. P.C. for recalling and re-examination of the witnesses which however was rejected on 09.12.2013 and which was affirmed by the revisional court vide order dated 12.09.2014. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an apparent error in the impugned order dated 09.12.2013 as after charge one witness of the complainant was examined. It has been submitted that the father of the complainant was seriously ill as a result of which the complainant could not take effective steps in the case and if one opportunity is given to the complainant he shall produce his witnesses before the learned trial court.;