Nawal Kishore Singh v. Ravi Shankar Singh And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.2042 of 2017 ====================================================== Nawal Kishore Singh Son of Late Ram Deo Singh, Resident of VillageBrindawan, P.S.- Lalganj, District- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Ravi Shankar Singh Son of Late Dayal Singh, Resident of Village- Jafarabad Tola, Brindawan, P.S.- Lalganj, District- Vaishali. 2.

Ajay Kumar Singh, Son of Late Dayal Singh, Resident of Village- Jafarabad Tola, Brindawan, P.S.- Lalganj, District- Vaishali. 3.

Ram Ishwar Singh, Son of Late Ram Deo Singh, Resident of VillageBrindawan, P.S.- Lalganj, District- Vaishali. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shyam Bihari Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 27-06-2025 An explanation has been received from the concerned official who conducted stamp reporting in this case and did not point out the defect about maintainability of the present petition. The concerned official has submitted that being unaware about the rules and procedure when he was transferred to Centralized Filing Section in the year, 2017, the present mistake occurred and he has tendered unconditional and unqualified apology. Though the mistake is major, considering the lapse of time and undertaking of the concerned official that no such mistake would be committed in future, the explanation of Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, concerned official is accepted.

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.2042 of 2017(3) dt.27-06-2025 2/2

2. Since the impugned order has been passed by learned Executive Magistrate, Hajipur at Vaishali in Misc. Case No. M-714/2000, Trial No. 54/2016 under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the present petition is not maintainable under the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and the same is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the competent court.

3. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to take appropriate steps before the competent court.

4. Permission is accorded.

5. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to take recourse of law in appropriate proceeding before appropriate forum.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) DKS/- U