Sunil Mistri @ Sunil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13295 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-983 Year-2017 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya ====================================================== 1.

Sunil Mistri @ Sunil Kumar, aged about 24 years (M), Son of Sri Jayram Mistri Residence of Village - Manjhwe, P.S.- Hisua, District - Nawada 2.

Sudhir Mistri @ Sudhir Kumar, aged about 27 years (M), Son of Jayram Mistri, Residence of Village - Manjhwe, P.S.- Hisua, District - Nawada 3.

Jayram Mistri, aged about 50 years (M), Son of Sri Mathura Mistri Residence of Village - Manjhwe, P.S.- Hisua, District - Nawada 4.

Sarita Devi, aged about 51 years (F), Wife of Jayram Mistri Residence of Village - Manjhwe, P.S.- Hisua, District - Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Gudiya Devi, aged about 23 years (F), Wife of Sunil Mistri D/o Birendra Mistri, At present Residing at - Narawat, P.S.- Atri, District - Gaya. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Choubey Jawahar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. On query of the Court from the learned counsel for the petitioners, with respect to stage of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite his best endeavour he could not seek any instruction in the matter and he is not aware with the charges have been framed or not.

3. The learned A.P.P. for the State, thus submits that the Court should refrain from interfering with the impugned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13295 of 2020(2) dt.03-10-2023 2/2 order which is against discharge, as in the event if the charges have been framed, the entire effort of the Court would go futile.

4. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to entertain the quashing application.

5. Accordingly, the present quashing application is dismissed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Nilmani/- U T