Subhankar Karmakar @ Shubhankar Karmkar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57472 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2012 Thana- POTHIYA District- Kishanganj ====================================================== Subhankar Karmakar @ Shubhankar Karmkar S/o Late Niranjan Karmakar , R/o Dumaria, P.S. and Distt.- Kishanganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

State Of Bihar 2.

Munajirul Islam, The District Manager, S.F.C., Kishanganj , S/o Mohinur Rahman, R/o Budhimari P.S. Kochadhaman , District- Kishanganj. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dilip Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP Mr. Niraj Kumar, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-12-2023 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP along with learned counsel for BSFC. 2.

On query of the court from the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the stage of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who is arguing the matter through virtual mode, submits that despite his best endeavours he could not seek instruction in the matter either from the petitioner or the deponent of the affidavit as such he is not in a position to inform the court with regard to the present status of the case. 3.

The learned APP along with learned counsel for the BSFC Niraj Kumar are present.

4.

The learned APP, Mr. Chandra Bhuahan Prasad,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57472 of 2017(2) dt.12-12-2023 2/2 submits that the order under challenge is dated 13-06-2014 whereby cognizance of offence under Section 409 of the IPC has been taken. It is next submitted much water has flown thereafter and chances are bright that the charges have been framed and trial might have concluded, which explains why the petitioner or anyone on his behalf never contacted the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5.

Considering the submission made by the learned APP, the court is not inclined to entertain the quashing application and the same is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U T