SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vijay Rai And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 6 February, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 27267 of 2010

1. Vijay Rai Son of Late Jhapas Rai.

2. Satendra Rai @ Satendra Kumar Son of Vijay Rai.

3. Upendra Rai Son of Vijay Rai.

4. Dharmendra Rai @ Dharmendra Kumar Son of Vijay Rai.

5. Ravindra Rai Son of Vijay Rai.

All resident of Village- Mahua Singh Rai, P.S. Mahua District- Vaishali.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Lal Bihari Rai Son of Late Jamun Rai Resident of Village- Fulpura, P.S.
Vidupur, District- Vaishali.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-02-2019

The matter has been placed by the Registry pointing out

that due to non compliance of the order dated 30.09.2010, the

application has stood dismissed against the opposite party no. 2.

When earlier the matter was placed before the Bench on

21.06.2011, on the prayer made by learned counsel for the

petitioners, the matter was adjourned for four weeks. Thereafter,

on 28.11.2011, the Court had allowed the petitioners to take

proper steps as deemed fit and proper. Despite the same, no steps

have been taken on behalf of the petitioners.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27267 of 2010 dt.06-02-2019
2/2

2. As the matter relates to a case under Section 498A of

the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

and the Court while granting interim stay had issued notice to the

opposite party no. 2, with the condition that if requisites were not

filed within the period specified, the application against him shall

stand rejected without further reference to the Bench, it is obvious

that the Court required the opposite party no. 2 to be present

before passing any final order. Since this application stands

rejected against the opposite party no. 2 in the year 2010 itself,

and despite twice earlier the Court having given opportunity to the

petitioners to take appropriate steps, the same not having been

done, the present application, in the opinion of the Court is

required to be dismissed.

3. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR
U
T

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation