Patna High CourtCR. REV./932/2019dfd for non appearance

Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-11Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Chandel2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.932 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Patna ====================================================== MANOJ KUMAR Son of Ram Keshwar Ram Resident of MIG - 325 Housing Colony Kankarbagh, P.S.- Kankarbagh, Distt - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar 2.

Smt. Priyanka Wife of Manoj Kumar, D/o Surendra Chaudhary Resident of Mohalla - Q. No. 644/800, Lal Bahadur Shastri Nagar, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, Distt - Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL ORAL ORDER 11-07-2024 No one appears for the petitioner as well as for the Opposite Party No.2.

2. The present criminal revision petition relates to the order dated 05.01.2019 passed in D.V. Case No. 37 of 2018 by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna whereby learned Judicial Magistrate directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 25,000/- as maintenance to the OP No. 2 and the said order has also been affirmed vide order dated 10th of June, 2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Patna.

3. From perusal of the records, it appears that by the order of this Court dated 01.02.2024, the matter was referred to the Patna High Court Mediation Centre for mediation. However, the report of the Mediator, Sri Prashant Sinha dated 15.04.2024

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.932 of 2019(6) dt.11-07-2024 2/2 shows that the mediation between both the parties has failed. Thereafter, the matter was listed before the Bench on 29.04.2024 and on that date, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. On 02.05.2024, after hearing the parties, this Court directed the matter to be listed on 11.07.2024 i.e., today.

4. Today, when the matter was called out, again no one appeared for the petitioner as well as for the OP No.2. It appears that the petitioner has lost his interest in the matter and he does not want to pursue the same. Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

(Arvind Singh Chandel , J) perwez U T