Dilip Kumar Rai v. The State of Bihar
Judgment
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rana Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER
26-06-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor. There happens to be refusal on the part of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 to receive summon, hence vide order dated
23.06.2004 the same has been accepted. Even then non-appearance of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 continued. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 17.07.2002 passed by the then Judicial Magistrate, Sri S.K. Singh in Complaint Case No.62 of 2000, Trial No.1012 of 2002 whereby and whereunder after closing the case of the petitioner before charge the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 were discharged. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor, also gone through the relevant order sheets. After appearance of Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 on 03- 04-2002 petitioner-complainant never appeared till the date of discharge of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3, even though a cost of Rs.100/- was imposed against him. While explaining the cause of absence, it has been submitted that petitioner-complainant happens to be resident of Flood Prone Area but the same is not acceptable in the background of the fact that Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 also found resident of same and similar locality. The matter had already been concluded in the year 2002 and the order impugned ultimately resulted on account of own lapses of the petitioner without having any legal, cogent, reliable explanation. Consequent thereupon, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and is accordingly dismissed. At the present moment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although cognizance was not taken with regard to kidnapping of wife of petitioner but the fact remains that the compliant was filed for the same and she is still traceless, will find no debar in taking proper legal recourse in the background of the fact that there happens to be no limitation with regard to institution of a case relating to cognizance offence. PN/- (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.