← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./32156/2019dismissed

Munshi Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2025-08-14Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32156 of 2019 In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6476 of 2014 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1222 Year-2012 Thana- ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.

MUNSHI SINGH Son of Late Kuber Singh Resident of Village- Malhipur, P.S.- Chenari, District- Rohtas.

2.

Dharmendra Singh Son of Munshi Singh Resident of Village- Malhipur, P.S.- Chenari, District- Rohtas.

3.

Amardeo Singh Son of Munshi Singh Resident of Village- Malhipur, P.S.- Chenari, District- Rohtas.

4.

Raju Singh Son of Munshi Singh Resident of Village- Malhipur, P.S.- Chenari, District- Rohtas.

5.

Ranjan Singh Son of Lallu Singh Resident of Village- Malhipur, P.S.- Chenari, District- Rohtas.

6.

Vishambhar Singh Son of Late Amerika Singh Resident of VillageMalhipur, P.S.- Chenari, District- Rohtas. 7.

Nathuni Singh Son of Late Mallu Singh Resident of Village- Malhipur, P.S.- Chenari, District- Rohtas.

8.

Om Prakash Singh Son of Munshi Singh Resident of Village- Malhipur, P.S.- Chenari, District- Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Saryu Singh Son of Late Ramanuj Singh @ Dargeli Singh Resident of Village- Malhipur, P.S.- Chenari, District- Rohtas. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Ms/Mrs. Asha Devi, A.P.P.

Mr. CM Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 14-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State

2. This modification petition has been filed for modification of order dated 22.8.2014, passed in Cr.Mis.No.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32156 of 2019(8) dt.14-08-2025 2/2 6476/2014.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the State opposed the modification petition and submitted that this petition has been moved after inordinate delay of about 11 years of passing of said order. Learned counsel submits that to modify an order, petitioners should come to the Court in time.

4. Considering the fact that this modification petition has been filed after delay of about 11 years and petitioners have not satisfied the Court that they were prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this modification petition within time. Accordingly, this modification petition is dismissed. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T