Syed Abdul Shamim, the father of the companyplainant was examined under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but he died on 9.1.2001.
On 30.3.2006 Md.Razi was examined and he was also cross examined by the defence on the same day.
Therefore, out of the five witnesses two witnesses were examined and three witnesses remained to be examined.
A rejoinder was filed to the petition filed by the companyplainant.
P.C. Therefore, at a later stage supplementary list of witnesses under Section 244 2 Cr.
This order passed by the S.D.J.M. on 25.4.2005 was challenged by the respondents by filing a petition before the High Court.
Then, an application was filed by the companyplainant to examine further witnesses before the charge on 3.1.2003.
Meanwhile, on 16.11.2005 Md.Zafar was examined in chief and he was also cross examined later on 23.1.2006.
Out of the remaining four witnesses, only two witnesses i.e. Syed Abdul Shalim and Mohd.
That application was filed by the companyplainant after the charges were framed and the witnesses were cross examined after the charge.
The S.D.J.M. found that this was a case of torturing a married woman and demanding dowry which are companytinuing offences, therefore, some more persons can throw light on the occurrence which may help the S.D.J.M. to arrive at a just decision and do proper justice to the parties.
Bhagalpur.
However, the D.J.M., Bhagalpur rejected the petition filed on behalf of the companyplainant to examine further witnesses before charge by its order dated 1.5.2003.
Then again on 24.1.2005 the companyplainant filed a petition before the S.D.J.M., Bhagalpur and prayed for issuance of summons to the witnesses whose names appeared in the list attached with the application.
K. MATHUR, J. Leave granted.
As the rest of the witnesses were gained over and they did number support the case of the companyplainant, therefore, a supplementary list of witnesses was attached to the application filed by the companyplainant namely, i Md. Wajahat son of Md.Ilyas, resident of Balha Narayanpur, P.S. Bhawanipur, District Bhagalpur, ii Md. Zafar son of late Habib, iii Bibi Afsana Shamim wifeof late Saiyad Abdul Shamim, iv Pappu alias Ram Chandra Tiwari son of Basahan Tiwari and v Md. Rasid son of lat Md. Safi, all of Mohalla Barahapura, P.S.Ishakchak, District.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.12.2006 passed by learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court whereby the learned single Judge of the High Court has quashed the order passed by the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur hereinafter to be referred to as the S.D.J.M. in Complaint Case No.1115 of 1999 by which the learned S.D.J.M. allowed prayer of the companyplainant by order dated 25.5.2005 to examine five witnesses named in the supplementary list filed by the companyplainant.
The S.D.J.M. registered the companyplaint.
Meanwhile, on 13.12.2006 the petition filed by the respondents before the High Court was allowed and the order of the S.D.J.M. passed on 25.4.2005 in Complaint case No.1115 of 1999 was quashed.
Sheru were examined before charge and were also examined after the charge.
The S.D.J.M. framed the charge on 30.8.2004.
The accused persons filed a rejoinder on 5.1.2003.
The rest of the two witnesses namely, Syed Abdul Fahim and Syed Obaidulla were gained over and therefore, they did number companye to the witness box.
However, on 25.4.2005, learned S.D.J.M. after hearing both the parties allowed the application filed by the companyplainant and the companyplainant was directed to examine all the five witnesses whose names appeared in the list.
P.C. companyld number be furnished to be examined.
Hence, the present appeal.
Therefore, this witness companyld number be tried during the trial.
