- (1.) THE petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order impugned dated 12.2.2007 passed by Sri. D.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 274 of 2004 by which the petition of the petitioner dated 12.2.2007 for bringing the agreement executed by one Kudus Khan on 14.3.2004 containing his forged signature on the record by proving it under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was refused. The petitioner further prayed for quashment of the order dated 4.4.2007 passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Rev.No. 25 of 2007 by which the Criminal Revision preferred against the order dated 12.2.2007 by the petitioner was refused upholding the order of the Trial Magistrate.
(2.) I find that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi rejected the petition of the petitioner under section 311 Cr.P.C. on 6.12.2006 on the ground that the petitioner had earlier also preferred a petition under section 311 Cr.P.C. almost for the same relief and against which Cr. Rev.No. 111 of 2006 was preferred by the petitioner and the same was allowed according her opportunity to produce all the required witnesses within the time frame but the petitioner failed to avail such opportunity and therefore, Cr.Rev. No. 25 of 2007 was dismissed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi on the ground that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity which was granted to her earlier for adducing evidence and the intention of the petitioner was only to linger the matter. I have carefully examined the order impugned passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi dated 12.2.2007 as also the order dated 4.4.2007 passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Revision No.25 of 2007. I find that complaint petition No. 274 of 2004 was filed on 24.3.2004 before the C.J.M. Ranchi, and the complainant -petitioner was examined on solemn affirmation. After enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. notices were sent to the accused persons, they put in appearance and then put on trial, I find substance in the concurrent observation of the Judicial Magistrate as well as the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi that the intention of the petitioner was to linger the matter as she failed to produce all the witnesses and bring the relevant documents on the record within time frame. The court cannot grant adjournment or allow petition preferred under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the fancy of either party and the Revisional court had earlier allowed the petition of the petitioner but such situation the petitioner failed to avail and without explaining any cogent reason for failure on her part. I find and observe that both the courts referred to herein above were justified in holding such views.
(3.) IN the facts and circumstances, there being no merit, this writ petition (Cr.) is dismissed with the direction to the trial court to expedite the trial so as to conclude preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.;