Ram Shekhar Singh And ORS. v. The State Of Bihar And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31668 of 2011 ======================================================

1. Ram Shekhar Singh S/O Late Rameshwar Singh R/O Vill. - Samartha, P.S. - Bibhutipur, District - Samastipur.

2. Ram Kumar Singh S/O Late Rameshwar Singh R/O Vill. - Samartha, P.S. - Bibhutipur, District - Samastipur.

3. Ram Prit Singh S/O Late Bachhan Singh R/O Vill. - Samartha, P.S. - Bibhutipur, District - Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Amresh Kumar Singh S/O Late Ram Karan Singh R/O Vill. - Samartha, P.S. - Bibhutipur, District - Samastipur.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Ms. Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 31-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Despite Opposite Party No. 2 having entered appearance and name of learned counsel also appearing in the cause list, nobody was present when the matter was taken up and heard.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31668 of 2011 dt.31-01-2019 2/3

3. On 18.01.2019, on prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, for filing supplementary affidavit bringing on record the sale deed in favour of petitioners no. 1 and 2 and the complainant, the matter was adjourned for today. No such affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the petitioners.

4. The matter being admitted for hearing and despite time being given, that too, on prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for filing supplementary affidavit, the same not having been done, the Court can only comment that the petitioners are taking the proceeding very casually.

5. At this stage, the Court would indicate that the sale deeds are relevant for the reason that in the complaint it is specifically alleged that the Opposite Party No. 2 had purchased the lands in question in the year 1978 in his name, being a major, and thus, the transfer of such land which belongs exclusively to Opposite Party No. 2 by his father in the year 1981 in favour of petitioners no. 1 and 2, was fraudulent. Even in the present application, no statement has been made denying the allegation as noted above.

6. Accordingly, the Court can only draw adverse inference that what has been alleged in the complaint is true and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31668 of 2011 dt.31-01-2019 3/3 this being the position, clearly besides civil action, criminal complaint would also be maintainable.

7. For reasons aforesaid, the application stands dismissed.

8. Let the Lower Court Records be returned forthwith. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR U T