Ram Pratap Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO. 38155 of 2015 =========================================================

1. Ram Pratap Singh son of Late Nathun Singh

2. Manju Devi @ Manju Kumari, wife of Shri Ramp Pratap Singh

3. Shweta Kumari, daughter of Shri Ram Pratap Singh

4. All are residents of Village - Sindhpur, Post Office + Police Station - Banke Bazar, District - Gaya.

.........Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar ..... ......Opposite Party ============================================================= With CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO. 39021 of 2015 ============================================================= Ram Pratap Singh son of Late Nathun Singh, resident of Village - Sindhpur, Post Office + Police Station - Banke Bazar, District - Gaya. ..... ......Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ..... ......Opposite Party ============================================================= Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s :

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Parmanand Kumar, APP ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5.

03.09.2020.

Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.

The State is represented by Mr. Parmanand Kumar, learned APP.

Petitioners in the first case seek quashing of the F.I.R of Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S. Case No. 38/2014, G.R. No. 354/2014 instituted for the offence under Sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. Whereas, the petitioner in the second case seeks quashing of the F.I.R. of Muzaffarpur Sadar P.S. Case No. 467 of 2013 dated 13.11.2013, G.R. No. 5335 /2013 instituted for the offence under Sections 363/365 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that vide order dated 02.07.2018, a report was called for from the court below about the stage of the above mentioned cases.

The report has been received. The report which is dated 12.03.2018 indicates that at that time the final form had not been submitted. More than two years have passed by and the investigation must have been completed. If at all, the investigation has not been completed, the same shall be done at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order before the Investigating Officer. This order, it is reiterated, would be implemented only if the final report has not been submitted before the concerned Court.

These petitions stands disposed of accordingly. (Ashutosh Kumar, J) Sunil/- U T