Smt. Priti Bhalotia v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1203 of 2011 ====================================================== Smt. Priti Bhalotia W/O Sri Sunil Bhalotia Proprietor Of Pratik Enterprises Sugar Supplier And Genral Merchant , B-1/39. Maurya Lok Complex , Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary , Department Of Home Government Of Bihar , Patna, New Secretariats , Bailey Road , Patna.

2. The Director General Of Police , Police Head Quarters , Old Secretariat , Patna.

3. The Inspector General, Tirhut Zone, Muzaffarpur.

4. The Deputy Inspector General, Muzaffarpur, At Muzaffarpur.

5. The Senior Superintendent Of Police , Vaishali At Hajipur .

6. The S.H.O. Hajipur Industrial Area , Vaishali At Hajipur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr. Devendra Kr Sinha AAG2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 08-08-2018 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.

Learned counsel representing the State is present. This Court has published a notice at the top of the cause list requesting the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State to come prepared with the information as to the present position of the investigation and the proceedings before the Court below.

It appears on perusal of the record that earlier this case was entertained and further proceeding was stayed

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1203 of 2011 (4) dt.08-08-2018 considering the fact that this case has got connection with the issue involved in L.P.A. No.724 of 2011. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner is not present, this Court has on information available on the website of the High Court showing status of the case found that L.P.A. No.724 of 2011 has already been dismissed on 12.09.2017.

This writ application is of the year 2011 and in view of the aforesaid developments coupled with the fact that nobody is putting appearance on behalf of the petitioner despite there being a notice, this Court has reasons to believe that the petitioner is not interested in pursing the matter. This writ application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Arvind/- U T