Patna High CourtCR. MISC./51005/2013dfd for non appearance

Rajendra Rai v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2017-08-22Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51005 of 2013 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2100 Year- 2010 Thana -SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- SAMASTIPUR ====================================================== Rajendra Rai son of Sri Shivaji Rai, resident of village- Ram Chandrapur, P.S- Sarairanjan, District- Samastipur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Ranju Devi wife of Jitendra Kumar Rai @ Jitendra Rai, resident of village- Ram Chandrapur, P.S- Sarairanjan, District- Samastipur, at present daughter of Devendra Prasad Roy, resident of village- Bhairokhra, P.STajpur, District- Samastipur. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Siaram Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Ram Ganesh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satyendra Nr. Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-08-2017 Despite repeated calls, no body appears to press this application. Even on 23.05.2017, when the matter was taken up, counsel for the petitioner did not appear and, thus, the case was adjourned to 24.05.2017. On 24.05.2017, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner the case was adjourned and directed to be listed after vacation. Thereafter, the matter has been taken up today before this Court.

From perusal of the record, I find that by order dated 22.10.2014, the proceeding before the court below in connection with Complaint Case No.2100 of 2010 corresponding to Tr.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51005 of 2013 (7) dt.22-08-2017 2/2 No.1655 of 2013 was stayed. It is manifest from the record that after obtaining the order of stay, the petitioner is deliberately trying to delay the disposal of the application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In that view of the matter, the application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

The interim order dated 22.10.2014 stands vacated. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Md.S./- U T