The Magistrate is not restricted to examining only those witnesses named in the complaint petition. The Magistrate may examine any witness whose evidence is relevant, even before the framing of the charge.

M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 23.9.1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 94 of 1991 whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate allowed the complainant- opposite party to examine the witnesses who are not named in the complaint petition before framing of charge.

2. The aforesaid C.P. Case No. 94 of 1991 was initiated on the basis of the complaint petition filed by the complainant-opposite party against her husband- petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. In the said complaint petition father-in-law and mother-in-law were also impleaded as accused persons. The complaint petition was filed against the petitioner for committing an offence under Secs. 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The prosecution story was that the complainant was married to the petitioner in the year 1978 and after marriage the petitioner started ill-treating her and demanded for a T.V. and money from her father. It is alleged that on 23.12.1990 the in-laws of the complainant drove her out from house after beating her and she was threatened to bring money and T.V. otherwise she would not be allowed to stay in the house of in-law of complainant.

4. Learned Magistrate took up the enquiry and after finding a prima facie case, cognizance was taken. After the petitioner-accused persons appeared, the learned Magistrate started examination of the witnesses before charge. The complainant-opposite party examined witnesses named in the complaint petition. The complainant, thereafter, when found insufficient materials against the accused persons, proposed to examine three more witnesses whose names have not appeared in the complaint petition. The complainant, therefore, filed a list of the witnesses to be examined and prayed for issuance of summon. The prayer of the complainant was opposed by the petitioner by filing an application stating, that before charge no other witnesses should be examined. Learned Magistrate allowed the complainant-opposite party to examine other witnesses, not named in the complaint petition in terms of the order dated 23.9.1991. Hence this application for revision.

5. Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyaya learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate as being illegal and contrary to procedure provided in Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Counsel submitted that the complainant is not entitled to examine any witness, not named in the complaint petition before the charge. Learned Counsel further submitted that after charge is framed and the full fledged trial begins then the complainant would be entitled to examine other witnesses. According to the learned Counsel, before the charge is framed the case reamins in the enquiry stage and complainant to entitled to examine only those witnesses named in the complaint petition. In support of his contention, learned Counsel relied upon a judgment of Punjab High Court in Dalip Singh Gujar Singh V/s. R.P. Biswas, 1967 Cri. L.J. 401 and the judgment of Bombay High Court in State of Bombay V/s. Janardhan and Ors., A.I.R. 1980 (Bombay) 513.

6. On the other hand S.N. Das learned Counsel appearing for the complain- ant-opposite party submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is perfectly legal and valid. Counsel further submitted that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which prohibits the complainant to examine the witnesses not named in the complaint petition even before the stage of the framing of charge. Learned Counsel drew my attention to the provision of the Code of the Criminal Procedure and submitted that at any stage of the proceeding the prosecution side may examine any witness whose evidence is relevant. Learned Counsel relied upon a judgment of Allahabad High Court in Ram Prakash V/s. Shatnbhu Dayal Agarwal and Anr., A.I.R. 1960 (Allahabad) 395 and a j