IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50574 of 2006 SANJAY SINHA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 12 1.4.2009 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Reference may be made to the earlier order of this Court dated 14.1.2009, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- “…………Counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit enclosing therein the receipts dated 27.2.2008, 23.5.2008, 28.7.2008, 29.9.2008 and 24.12.2008, all of Rs. 50,000/- each and totaling to Rs. 2,50,000/-. Counsel for the petitioner submits that these payments were made by way of making full and effective compliance of the order dated 23.1.2008. Unfortunately such submission of the petitioner is not correct, inasmuch as by the order dated 23.1.2008 this Court had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as agreed by the parties and undertaken by the counsel for the petitioner. The submission that some payments were made in the month of October,2004, November, 2005 and May, 2006 as acknowledged by O.P.No.2 in a receipt dated 29.7.2006 and the same should be also accounted for towards the compliance of the order of this Court 2 dated 23.1.2008, has to be only noted for its being rejected. Such payment in fact was not part of the payment of Rs. 3 lacs as is clear from the proceedings of this case as recorded in the order dated 4.10.2007. That being so, the first payment which was to be made by the petitioner in compliance of the order of this Court dated 23.1.2008 by the 1st week of February, 2008, as clearly recorded in the order dated 23.1.2008, appears to have been not at all made. The petitioner cannot succeed in his design if he is adamant to flout the order of this Court. This Court for the time being rejects such submission but would give only more indulgence to make payment of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of two months i.e. on or before 14th March, 2008. Counsel for the petitioner would also file a rejoinder affidavit to the interlocutory application ( I.A.No. 56/2009)filed by O.P.No.2 seeking initiation of a proceeding under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for swearing false affidavit in paragraph 2 of this case that he had not moved the Sessions Judge, Patna in connection with the present case………..”. The affidavit as directed in the order dated 14.1.2009 has not been filed nor the 3 petitioner has cared to answer the allegations made against him that as to why he had filed this application by suppressing filing of a revision application before the sessions judge in the same matter. The non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioner, therefore, seems to be deliberate in order to avoid the aforementioned uncomfortable answer as noted in the aforesaid order of this Court dated 14.1.2009. That being so, this application is dismissed with the aforementioned observations. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)