Sanjay Kumar v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 50491 of 2014 Arising Out of Complaint Case No.-24 C Year-2012 Thana- MADHEPURA COMPLAINT CASE District- Madhepura ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar, Son of Sikendra Yadav, Resident of village- Tamua, P.S.- Chhatapur, District- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Archana, W/o Sanjay Kumar, Resident of village- Tamua, P.S.- Chhatapur, District- Supaul, at present F/o Sri Anmol Pd. Mandal, resident of villageMurliganj, Ward No. 12, P.S.- Murliganj, District- Madhepura. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocates For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 16-04-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the following relief:

"That, this is an application for quashing the order dated 24/4/2014 passed by learned 1st Addl. Session Judge, Madhepura in Cri. Revision 64 of 2013 arising out of Complaint Case No. 24C of 2012 in which the learned 1st Addl. Session Judge, Madhepura was pleased to dismissed the application of the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 23/3/2013 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Madhepura in Complaint Case No. 24 C of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50491 of 2014(9) dt.16-04-2019 2/2 2012 whereby and where under the S.D.J.M.

Madhepura has taken cognizance, processes were issued against the petitioner and others for the offences under section 498 A Indian Penal Code and 4 Dowry Probhotion Act."

3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would not press the application.

4. In view of the aforesaid stand of learned counsel for the petitioner, the application stands disposed off. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar U T