Ramji Mahto And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33803 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-259 Year-2017 Thana- BIHAR District- Nalanda ====================================================== 1.

Ramji Mahto son of Late Sukar Mahato, 2.

Kamala Devi, W/o Ramji Mahato 3.

Prabhakar Kumar @ Bipin Kumar, son of Ramji Mahato 4.

Subhakar Kumar, son of Ramji Mahato All resident of Village- Sugiya, P.S. Shekhopur Sarai, District- Sheikhpura.

5.

Shobha Devi, wife of Santosh Kumar, resident of Village- Jhaur, P.S. Warsaliganj, District Nawada.

6.

Sangeeta Devi, wife of Binod Kumar, resident of Village- Chakwara, P.S. Warsaliganj, District Nawada.

7.

Nippi Kumari, D/o Ramji Mahato, resident of Village- Sugiya, P.S. Shekhopur Sarai, District- Sheikhpura.

8.

Babi Devi @ Bebi Devi, wife of Manoj Kumar, resident of Village- Panchi, P.S. Sheikhopur Sarai, District- Sheikhpura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

State Of Bihar 2.

Kumari Anita Rani, D/o Dr. Ashok Kumar Verma, wife of Diwakar Kumar, resident of Mohalla- Baradari Dayra, P.S. Biharsharif Nalanda. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Sandesh Roy, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Singh -5, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-02-2024

1. Heard the 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 the stage of the case, it has been submitted that despite his best endeavour, he was not able to contact the petitioners nor the petitioners in these five years ever

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33803 of 2018(2) dt.08-02-2024 2/2 contacted him, as such, he is not in a position to inform the court with regard to the present status of the case.

3. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present quashing application.

4. Accordingly, the present quashing application is hereby rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T