← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./50754/2016dismissed

Om Prakash Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2026-07-282 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50754 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1078 Year-2015 Thana- WEST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- West Champaran ====================================================== Om Prakash Singh, Son of Late Jagdish Singh, Resident of Mohalla Ganj No.2, Mitra Chowk, Bettiah, Ward No. 26, P.S. Bettiah Town, District West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Saraswati Devi, Wife of late Ranjit Singh.

3.

Ashok Kumar Singh, 4.

Anoop Kumar Singh, 5.

Abhay Kumar Singh.

Sl. No. 3 to 5 all sons of late Ranjit Singh, Resident of Mitra Chowk, Hospital Rao, Ganj No. 1, Bettiah, P.S. Bettiah Town, District- West Champaran.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-07-2026 On repeated calls, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press this application. Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor is present.

2. This application has been preferred assailing the order dated 06.06.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 1078 (C) of 2015 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, West Champaran, Bettiah dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., as well as the order dated 24.08.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 161 of 2016 by the learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50754 of 2016(3) dt.28-07-2026 2/2 Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah affirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Champaran, Bettiah.

3. Almost ten years have lapsed since the dismissal of the aforesaid complaint and revision preferred thereafter. It seems that the petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the matter as such the learned counsel for the petitioner is not appearing to press this application.

4. Accordingly, this application is dismissed for non-prosecution.

(Rana Vikram Singh, J) saurabh.kr/ prakashU T