COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4234 of 2012 v. Darogi Sao
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
With this observation, this petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4234 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Anil Kumar 2. Rajendra Prasad Gupta @ Rajendra Prasad @ Munna 3. Manoj Prasad @ Chunnu All sons of late Govind Pd. Gupta, R/o village-Jaynagar, Kawayan, Mausum-Dalpatti, Naya Bazar, Pragana-Salemabad, PS & Distt-Lakhisarai .... .... Petitioner/s Versus
#1. Darogi Sao, son of Maho Sao 2. Smt. Manorama Devi, wife of Darogi Sao 3. Prabhat Kumar Sao, son of Darogi Sao 4. Uday Prakash Sah son of Darogi Sao All residents of village-Jai Nagar, Kawayan, Mausume- Dalpatti, Lakhisarai, Naya Bazar, Pragana-Salemabad, PS & District-Lakhisarai. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Rekha Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 10-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. In this case, petitioners are challenging the order dated
20.9.2011 passed in T.S. No. 30/2007 by which the court below has refused to entertain the application filed under section 89 (1) read with Order 10 Rule 1 A of the Indian Penal Code. After some argument, the counsel for the petitioners wants to withdraw this application. The permission is granted to petitioners to file a separate petition challenging the order by which the court below has closed his evidence. With this observation, this petition is dismissed. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With this observation, this petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
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.