Patna High CourtCR. REV./912/2008dismissed

Jai Nandan Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2019-01-03Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.912 of 2008 ====================================================== Jai Nandan Choudhary, Son of Late Nathuni Choudhary, Resident of Village - Godhna, P.S. - Bhagwanpur, District - Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Mahendra Choudhary, Son of Late Tuntun Choudhary.

3. Sunil Choudhary, Son of Mahendra Choudhary.

4. Moti Choudhary, Son of Mahendra Choudhary.

5. Sanjay Choudhary, Son of Mahendra Choudhary.

6. Manoj Choudhary, Son of Mahendra Choudhary.

7. Anil Choudhary, Son of Mahendra Choudhary.

8. Ten Narain Choudhary, Son of Late Madhav Choudhary.

9. Gauri Kunwar, Son of Natho Kunwar.

10. Rajiv Choudhary, Son of Hari Choudhary.

All Resident of Village - Godhna, P.S. - Bhagwanpur, District - Begusarai. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr.R.B.Roy Raman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-01-2019 None appears for the petitioner. However, Mr. R.B. Roy Raman, learned APP for the State is present. The present revision application has been filed against the judgment dated 12.06.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. IInd, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 295 of 1995,whereby opposite party nos. 2 to 10 were acquitted from the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 427, 337, 307, 302 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

It appears that the notices were issued to opposite party nos. 2 to 10 vide order dated 21.01.2011 by a Bench of

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.912 of 2008(4) dt.03-01-2019 2/2 this Court (since retired) and the requisites were directed to be filed within peremptory period of 10 days.

From the office note dated 20.09.2018 it appears that the requisites were not filed and the revision application stood rejected against opposite party nos. 2 to 10 for non-compliance of peremptory order dated 21.01.2011.

In the circumstances, the present revision application has become meaningless and accordingly, it is dismissed. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) DKS/- U T