IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1162 of 2007 PHOOL MOHAMMAD @ PHOOL MOHAMMAD MIAN Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Shekhar Kr.Singh For the opposite party no.2 : Mr. Jagdish Pd. Bhagar For the State: Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ======= 6 27.3.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. A proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated in which the parties appeared, petitioner filed written statement also but did not contest the proceeding and ultimately the same was decided in his absence. A revision was preferred on his behalf but much beyond the period of limitation and explanation was given for his non-appearance with further prayer to condone the delay but that was refused. Now after near about three and half years this Court was approached for quashing the trial court and revisional court’s order. The only point stressed by the parties is if the period taken by the petitioner in coming to this Court, can be made a ground for refusal of any relief by this Court or can be ignored. In this case from very beginning after filing of written statement, the petitioner disappeared. Revision was also filed beyond the limitation. Thereafter after decision of the revision also this petitioner slept for years to approach this Court. A simple explanation is given on his behalf about his suffering from different ailments which have fully been discussed by the Sessions Court even then near about three and half years was taken by him. - 2 - Though I am not going to make any observation on the point which is raised on behalf of opposite party no.2 about opposite party no.2 remaining in possession of the land in dispute as obtained in T.S. decree but circumstances stated above disentitles the petitioner for any relief. This application is dismissed. (Mandhata Singh,J.) AI