Bijay Kumar Naidu Vs Mamata Dora

None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called though the matter is called twice over, once when the matter is reached before the lunch break and again after resumption of the court proceeding.

The petitioner in the petition prays for quashing the order dated 16.08.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Crl. Rev. No.03 of 2011. By the said order, the revisional court confirmed the order passed by the learned SDJM, Sambalpur in Crl. Misc.Case No.102 of 2008 in a proceeding U/s.125 Cr.P.C.

RJ

Having gone through the order passed by the learned court and the learned revisional court, it is found that both the orders are just and proper being based on evidence on record. By the original order, learned court had rejected the claim of the petitioners in the proceeding before the learned SDJM U/s. 125 Cr.P.C.

Apparently, the petitioner has not interested in prosecuting the matter. In the meanwhile, 12 years have

// 2 //

passed.

Considering the nature of litigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served keeping the matter pending.

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge

¶26

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: RADHARANI JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 17-Nov-2023 15:25:00

Page 2 of 2

Bijay Kumar Naidu v. Mamata Dora