IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33550 of 2010 3 7.10.2010 1. Dharmendra Kumar 2. Bidhan Chandra Prasad Both sons of Late Jagarnath Prasad, resident of village- Hariharpur, P.S. Jadopur, District Gopalganj ….. Petitioners VERSUS The State of Bihar ….. Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioners : Mr S.B.K.Mangalam, Advocate For the State : Mr Nand Kumar, APP ------ A quashing application bearing Cr. Misc. No.13228 of 1998 was dismissed for non- prosecution on 11.3.2010 when counsel for the petitioners did not appear at the hearing stage. This application is for restoration of the aforesaid quashing application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order of cognizance dated 8.6.1998 in respect of offences under Sections 324, 307/34 of the IPC in Jadopur PS Case No.247/97 dated 2.11.1997. The plea for restoration is that the petitioners have committed no fault and the default was on the part of their counsel. The order- sheet of the quashing application - 2 - shows that at the time of admission, stay of further proceedings was granted on 6.8.1998. When the case was taken up for hearing on 13.11.2003, it was dismissed for non- appearance of the counsel. The prayer for restoration was allowed and the matter could be again taken up for hearing on 29.3.2007. On that date nobody appeared but this Court adjourned the matter to 30.3.2007. The matter could be taken up on 2.4.2007 and again it was dismissed for non- appearance. Again this Court restored the matter and the case could be taken up for hearing on 11.3.2010. The case was dismissed due to non- prosecution and non- appearance. The order gives the relevant details of earlier dismissals and in that light it was observed that any application for restoration of the case shall be considered only on payment of exemplary costs. The lower court records were directed to be sent down immediately because the old case of 1997 had remained stayed for over a decade due to the repeated defaults on behalf of the petitioners. This restoration application was filed on 8.9.2010. It has been submitted that as per observation - 3 - the petitioners’ prayer for restoration be allowed as the petitioners are prepared to pay exemplary costs. This Court is of the considered view that petitioners have been playing trick with the Court and non- appearance of the counsel for the petitioners appears to be an attempt to avoid particular courts so as to ultimately have the matter argued as per their convenience. It will not be in the interest of justice to permit such an attitude. If the petitioners are innocent they will have ample opportunity to prove so before the court below. In the facts of the case, this Court is not persuaded to allow the prayer for restoration. This application is accordingly dismissed. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)