1 2025:CGHC:53773 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 3314 of 2025 Smt. Akila Dorjee @ Ena W/o Dinesh Kumar Dorjee (As Per Cause Title Throgh Denied D/o Stephen Dorjee Aged About 37 Years R/o Nide Iii, C.W.C. Chimpu Itanagar, Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh (Accused) --- Petitioner versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate District- Manendragarh - Chirmiri - Bharatpur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State-Respondent : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 04/11/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned Second Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) in MJC No.53/2019. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the applicant is already married with Mr. Saka Subah of Chandanagar Ita (A.P) on 3/10/2010 and to this 2 effect a Mutual Marriage Agreement was also executed between the parties and witness to the agreement are Father Mr. S. Dorjee, mother K.Dorjee and K Yasiyaki and Marko Mama. The applicant move an application before the trial Court for calling witnesses of Mutual Marriage Agreement, by summoning them, as they are the important witnesses to prove the factum of applicant marriage. That applicant has made all her best effort to secure there presence before the trial Court, but, they are not appearing, on the ground that they are residing too far and no notice of the learned Court was received by them. The trial Court vide order dated 17/10/2025, rejected the application, mainly under the influence of Action Plan, as the matter is pending since 2019. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial court, fail to considered that it is the principal rule that accused ought to get the fair opportunity to prove herself as a innocent. That Learned Trial Court, fail to considered that no prejudice will be caused to any one if a summons are issued to the witnesses of Mutual Marriage Agreement, rather it supports the Golden Rule of Criminal Justice of free and fair trial. The trial Court in most mechanical manner, rejected the applicant without considering the merit of the application. He further contended that they are the material witnesses, to prove innocence of the applicant and without that proper and reasonable opportunity of defence will not be available to the applicant. It is the 3 valuable right of the accused as provided under Constitution of India. The action Plan, does not preclude the Learned trial court for considering the meritorious application of issuing summons to the material witnesses to prove innocence of the applicant, who was involved in a crime, which she has never committed. Therefore, it is prayed that kindly be pleased to call for the record of the trial Court and allow an application for calling witnesses by summoning them and an order dated 17/10/2025 may kindly be pleased to set aside and further please to direct the trial court to issue summons to the witnesses of Mutual Marriage Agreement. 4. Learned State counsel has no objection on the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the paries and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties. Upon considering the submissions and the record, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application in a mechanical manner. The witnesses to the Mutual Marriage Agreement are material for the defence, and denial of their examination would prejudice the petitioner’s right to a fair trial. Providing one opportunity to summon such witnesses will not cause any prejudice to the prosecution and is necessary to secure the ends of justice. 4 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 17/10/2025 is set aside, and the trial Court is directed to issue summons to the said witnesses, who may be permitted to appear through virtual mode for recording their statements. The accused is also directed that he shall co-operate in the trial and he shall not take unnecessary adjournment. 8. Consequently, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant