Soni Mishra And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No 12565 of 2017 ======================================================
1. Soni Mishra Wife of Ravi Shankar Mishra,
2. Ravi Shankar Mishra, Son of Umesh Mishra Both are Residents of Village-Gospur, P.S. Karjain, District-Supaul. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ashok Shukla, Son of Manager Shukla, Resident of Flat No. 305, Hope Regency, Chitragupta Nagar, P.S.Patrakar Nagar, District-Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Pramod Mishra, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr S Ehteshamuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 26-04-2017 In this case, the petitioner has earlier moved before this Court and this Court, vide order dated 11.01.2017 passed in Cr Misc No 34655 of 2013, had disposed of the application with a direction that:
"After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioners agrees to deposit the due amount in the Court below to be released in favour of Opposite Party No 2.
Once the same is deposited within two months, the opposite party will file a petition for release of the same and as the case is compoundable, the learned Court below will pass appropriate order on hearing both parties and a petition filed to that effect."
However, by filing the present application, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners could
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12565 of 2017 (2) dt.26-04-2017 2/2 not deposit the amount within the time allowed by this Court and, as such, three months more time is prayed to deposit the amount. It appears from the record of the case and the record of the earlier case that the case is pending since 2013 and after an order was passed directing the petitioners to deposit the amount in the Court below with a direction, as above, it appears that direction of this Court was flouted and now more time is prayed. Considering the same, petitioners are not interested in making a settlement and, as such, prayer for modification of the earlier order is rejected.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) M.E.H./- U T