Dasharath Pd. Singh @ Malik Singh Vs. the State of Bihar

Dasharath Pd. Singh @ Malik Singh vs The State of Bihar

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided May 13, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/974919

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/974919
Court: Patna High Court
Decided On: May 13, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dasharath Pd. Singh @ Malik Singh

Respondent

The State of Bihar

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at patna criminal miscellaneous no.2081 of 2012 dasharath pd. singh @ malik singh versus the state of bihar ---------------------------------”13. 01.2012 this is an application for restoration of cr.misc.no. 39466 of 2008 which stood rejected for not having been complied with the peremptory order dated 25.10.2011 within time granted to the petitioner to file requisite for issuance of notice on opposite party no.2 under both process. it appears that due to inadvertence the word informant in 2nd line of paragraph no.1 of order dated 25.10.2011 in cr.misc.no. 39466 of 2008 has been wrongly written in place of accused persons as the application for quashing has been preferred by the informant himself. let the word informant in 2nd line of paragraph 1 of order dated 25.10.2011 (cr.misc.no. 39466 of 2008) be read as accused persons. counsel for the petitioner is directed to implead the accused persons as opposite parties in the main application and on doing so, he shall also file requisites for issuance 2 of notice under both processes. in the circumstances, the order dated 25.10.2011 passed in the instant case is modified to the aforesaid extent and this restoration application is allowed and cr.misc.no. 39466 of 2008 is restored to its original file. ai ( mandhata singh, j.)

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.2081 of 2012 Dasharath Pd. Singh @ Malik Singh Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------”

13. 01.2012 This is an application for restoration of Cr.Misc.No. 39466 of 2008 which stood rejected for not having been complied with the peremptory order dated 25.10.2011 within time granted to the petitioner to file requisite for issuance of notice on opposite party no.2 under both process. It appears that due to inadvertence the word informant in 2nd line of paragraph no.1 of order dated 25.10.2011 in Cr.Misc.No. 39466 of 2008 has been wrongly written in place of accused persons as the application for quashing has been preferred by the informant himself. Let the word informant in 2nd line of paragraph 1 of order dated 25.10.2011 (Cr.Misc.No. 39466 of 2008) be read as accused persons. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to implead the accused persons as opposite parties in the main application and on doing so, he shall also file requisites for issuance 2 of notice under both processes. In the circumstances, the order dated 25.10.2011 passed in the instant case is modified to the aforesaid extent and this restoration application is allowed and Cr.Misc.No. 39466 of 2008 is restored to its original file. AI ( Mandhata Singh, J.)

Same Court & Year Patna · 2012 Same Parties Dasharath Pd. Singh @ Malik Singh vs The State of Bihar Same Subject Education