Raghvendra Kumar Pandey @ Munna Pandey v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12800 of 2014 In CRIMINAL REVISION No.642 of 2008 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-135 Year-2010 Thana- BELHAR District- Banka ====================================================== Raghvendra Kumar Pandey @ Munna Pandey S/O Dinesh Pandey Through Under Guardianship Of Dinesh Pandey R/O Village- Chasi, P.S.- Narayanpur, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
State Of Bihar and Anr 2.
Chandramani Nindachari @ Chandramani Das Mahanth S/O Late Sita Ram Singh R/O Shankerjee Gopaljee Temple Chasi, Village- Chasi, P.S.- Narainpur, District- Bhojpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ashwini Kumar Rai, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Arun Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-06-2020 This application has been filed for modification of the order dated 25.07.2012 passed by Hon'ble Justice B.P. Verma, J. as he then was.
By the aforesaid order, the revision petition was admitted for hearing and the lower court records were called for. Notice also was issued to opposite party no. 2 in the hearing matter and the rule was made returnable within six months. By the aforesaid order, it was clarified that because of the penedency of the present revision petition, the trial of the other accused persons shall not be withheld.
This modification petition has been filed on the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12800 of 2014(3) dt.30-06-2020 2/2 plea that the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury, if the lower court records is not summoned by the High Court and the case is not heard on merits. The apprehension of the petitioner appears to be highly misconceived.
There is no reason for modifying the aforesaid order.
In case, at the time of the hearing of the revision petition, if at all it has not yet been heard, any necessity of the lower court record would be felt, the same may be summoned. However, that cannot be a ground for modifying the order dated 25.07.2012. For the aforesaid reason, the application preferred on behalf of the petitioner for modification of the order dated 25.07.2012 is rejected.
The application stands disposed of accordingly. (Ashutosh Kumar, J) krishna/- U T