Suresh Sah v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Home Deptt., Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37389 of 2019 In Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.831 of 2019 ====================================================== Suresh Sah Son of Singhasan Sah, resident of Village - Rajapur, P.S.- Kateya, Dist.- Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Home Deptt., Bihar, Patna 2.

Suresh Baitha Son of Khedu Baitha 3.

Shambhu Nath Baitha Son of Suresh Baitha 4.

Ajay Baitha @ Abhay Baitha Son of Suresh Baitha 5.

Jitendra Baitha Son of Suresh Baitha 6.

Ramchandra Manjhi Son of Dharichhan Manjhi 7.

Umesh Manjhi Son of Dharichhan Manjhi All 2 to 7 are residents of Village - Rajapur, P.S.- Kateya, Dist.- Gopalganj. ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Yogendra Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Prabhat Kumar Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-09-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State via video conferencing. The instant application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for restoration of the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vide Cr.W.J.C. No. 831 of 2019. The said writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 13.05.2019.

2/3 Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers upon High Court inherent jurisdiction. Under the said jurisdiction the High Court has the power to pass such order(s) (not inconsistent with any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure) including the order for costs in appropriate cases as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. An application which was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not an application filed under any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Any order passed in such application is also not an order passed under any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that for restoration of a writ petition, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution, the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked. The application is thoroughly misconceived. It is dismissed accordingly.

Since the court proceedings are being conducted through virtual mode and normal court functioning has not been restored till date, it is considered appropriate to adopt the following procedure for communication of the present order:-

3/3 (i) The order, which has been dictated during the course of proceeding of the virtual court, shall be communicated to me on my email by the Sr.

Secretary.

(ii) The corrected copy of the order shall be transmitted by me from my email id to the Sr. Secretary, which shall be treated to be an authentic copy of the order passed by this Court in the present proceeding. (iii) Hard copy of the order duly signed by me shall be preserved in my residential office for documentation and future use, if any.

(iv) Let a copy of the order be sent to Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner also on his email.

(v) Let steps be taken by the Sr. Secretary/registry for up-loading of the present order without compromising with the norms of social distancing. kanchan/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) U T