In the absence of the petitioner's appearance, a criminal miscellaneous petition for quashing a trial court order was dismissed for want of non-prosecution, with liberty to raise points before the trial court.
Petition dismissed for want of non-prosecution with liberty to take next steps before the trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43260 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-972 Year-2012 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE District- Katihar
======================================================
Keshav Kumar Giri Son of Late Ram Nath Giri, resident of Village- Barari Bharti Tola, Shivana Road, P.S.- Barari, District- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 03-03-2023 No one appears on call.
The present petition has been preferred for quashing of the order dated 29.11.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Katihar in Cr. Revision Case No. 108 of 2014 by which the learned Session Judge has been pleased to dismiss the Cr. Revision case in illegal manner confirming the order dated 16.06.2014 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 972 of 2012 (Trial No. 2693 of 2014) arising out of protest petition filed in Barari P.S. Case No. 21 of 2012 by which the learned Court below dismissed the complaint petition.
This Court has gone through the order of the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43260 of 2015(2) dt.03-03-2023 2/3
Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision No. 108 of 2014 in which the learned Session Judge has recorded the following observation:
“On consideration of submissions and impugned order what I find is this that the learned Counsel for the revisionist has filed photocopy of notice issued by C.O. Barari and order and other document and also photocopy of prescription but what I find is this that the case was posted for S.A. of the revisionist/complainant by order dated 24.04.12 and thereafter the case was transferred and on 07.05.2012 S.A. was recorded of the complainant/revisionist and posted for recording statement of the witnesses and this order was made on 07.06.2012 and case was adjourned after one date to another and time petition was filed on behalf of the complainant/revisionist but no witness could be produced till 16.06.2014 when impugned order was passed and sometimes petition for time was filed on this plea that revisionist/complainant is not well and sometime due to some unavoidable reason and sometime missed the vehicle. The learned counsel for the revisionist taken plea before this Court that revisionist was under treatment but time petition was filed on behalf of the revisionist, does not support this stand, as sometime missed the vehicle, sometime unavoidable reason, so for long time I find that revisionist/complainant did not take interest in it though this Court will not take consideration of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43260 of 2015(2) dt.03-03-2023 3/3
pendency of Suit Title No. 408 of 2012 and also proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. but the learned Court below had no option left except to dismiss and wherein I find no illegality, impropriety in the entire facts and circumstances. Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court.”
In view of the clear stand of the learned Session
Judge, another view is not required.
However, it seems that no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, the petition stands dismissed for want of nonprosecution with liberty to raise all the points before the Trial Court at an appropriate stage.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Neha/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an order must be dismissed for want of non-prosecution when no petitioner appears in court.
Whether the High Court can record a non-prosecution order in a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Article 226.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Keshav Kumar Giri
The State Of Bihar
Munna Ansari
Raushan Ansari
Rajiv Roy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
