IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22831 of 2004 1. RAJESH KUMAR @ RAJESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA S/O SATISH PRASAD 2. SATISH PRASAD @ SATISH PRASAD SINHA, S/O SHRI BRIJ KUMAR LAL 3. MANJU DEVI DAUGHTER OF SATISH PRASAD 4. POONAM DEVI DAUGHTER OF SATISH PRASAD ALL R/O MOHALLA- PRAKASH PURI P.S. ARA TOWN, DISTRICT-BHOJPUR. --PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUNITA DEVI, D/O SURAJ NATH LAL, R/O VILLAGE– DIGHA GHAT, P.S.DIGHA, DISTRICT-PATNA. --OPP. PARTY 11 11.08.2010 Heard Sri Satish Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Damodar Prasad Tiwary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing order dated 13.9.1999 taking cognizance for the offences under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. As it appears the complainant, who was made opposite party no.2, was ordered to be noticed on 25.3.2009 at the time of admitting this case for hearing and requisites were to be filed within a week failing which the application was to be treaded dismissed so far opposite party no.2 is 2 concerned. The petitioners did not comply the order regarding filing of requsities so it appears from office notes that this application so far with respect to the complainant opposite party no.2 has already been treated dismissed. Since in view of the order passed in complaint case and this application for quashing has already been dismissed with respect to the complainant in default and no step is taken inspite of lapse of more than a year for re- instalment for all the purpose, this application has become infructuous. Accordingly, dismissed. Simultaneously, the court below is directed to proceed expeditiously and pass appropriate order according to law. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) AAhmad