Tetari Devi vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 898 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 79330 of 2019
                               Arising out of
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 5735 of 2015
           Arising Out of PS Case No.-254 Year-2007 Thana- BIRAUL District- Darbhanga
     ======================================================

Tetari Devi, Wife of Fulo Mukhia, aged about 50 years, Female, at present Resident of Village - Changwra Tola, Afjala, PO- Ladha, PS- Biraul, District- Darbhanga

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Gopal Mukhia, Son of Raj Naraayaan Mukhia, aged about ..... years, Male

3. Nand Kumar Mukhia, aged about .... years, Male, Son of Fulo Mukhia.

4. Parmeshwar Mukhia, aged about ..... years, Male, Son of Ram Bahadur Mukhia.

All are resident of Village - Changwra Tola, Afjala, PO- Ladha, PS- Biraul, District- Darbhanga.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 17-02-2021

Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

2. The present application has been filed seeking

modification of the order dated 15.05.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No.

5735 of 2015 by which the order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the

Additional District Judge-II, Benipur in Cr. Revision No. 79 of

2012, was set aside in favour of the opposite parties no. 2 to 4.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79330 of 2019 dt.17-02-2021

3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the

Court finds that the petition is misconceived for the reason that

under the garb of seeking modification, the petitioner seeks review

of the order dated 15.05.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5735 of

2015, that too, on the sole ground that notice was never received

by the petitioner.

4. From the order itself it is apparent that as per the

record of the Court, notice was validly served on the petitioner.

Thus, both, on the ground that there cannot be any review in a

criminal matter and further that the finding of valid service of

notice to the petitioner, being a matter of fact, cannot be

adequately gone into in the present proceeding, the Court finds

that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be allowed.

5. For reasons aforesaid, the application stands

dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

Anand Kr.

AFR/NAFR U T