IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17519 of 2007 DINESH SAHNI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 8.5.2008. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 15.12.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Criminal. Revision. No. 446 of 2006 whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision filed against the order dated 31.8.2006 passed by learned C.J.M., Darbhanga thereby he has dismissed the complaint/protest petition bearing no. 952 of 2006. It appears from the record that the petitioner filed a complaint petition before the Court of learned C.J.M., Darbhanga against the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 bearing C.R. No. 371/2006 which was sent to the police concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for institution and investigation. The police after investigation submitted final form vide Annexure-2 and also recommended for taking action against the petitioner under Section 182, 211 Cr.P.C. It also appears from the records that protest petition had been filed by petitioner against the police. Learned C.J.M., Darbhanga vide order dated 14.7.2006 accepted the final report submitted by the police and converted the protest petition into a complaint case bearing C. R. No. 952 of 2006. As the petitioner did not appear in the complaint case, it was ultimately dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 31.8.2006. Petitioner preferred revision against the order dated 31.8.2006 which was ultimately - 2 - heard by the learned sessions judge and dismissed the same vide order dated 15.12.2006. In the course of the submission, the only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was validly served upon the petitioner before hearing on final report or dismissal of the complaint-cum-protest petition. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that final form was accepted by the learned C.J.M. after service of notice upon the petitioner. Considered the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the order dated 14.7.2006 as well as 15.12.2006. On perusal of it, it appears that notice was actually served upon the petitioner on 2.7.2006 by hanging it at a conspicuous place of the house of the petitioner as he had refused to accept it. But in spite of that no appearance was made by the petitioner and ultimately final report submitted by the police was accepted. Thereafter, complaint-cum-protest petition was also dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. due to absence of petitioner. Under the facts and circumstances, it is clear that there is no merit in this application. Accordingly, the same is, hereby, rejected. kanchan (Ghanshyam Prasad, J.)