IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8333 of 2005 BIBHU KUMAR SINHA, SON OF LATE CHANDRA SHEKHAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-THAKURBARI WARD NO.10, P.S. MOTIHARI TOWN, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. …………………………………………………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. RAM SHANKAR PRASAD, SON OF LATE ETWAR SAH. 3. VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA, SON OF LATE ETWAR SAH. 4. HARI PRASAD GUPTA, SON OF LATE RAJA SAH. 5. LAL BABU PRASAD, SON OF LATE RAM LAKHAN PD. BY CASTE VAISHYA. 6. RAM UDAR SINGH, SON OF LATE AYODHYA SINGH BY CATE RAJPUT. RESIDENT OF VILL/MOHALLA-THAKURBARI WARD NO.10, P.S. MOTIHARI TOWN, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. …………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Srivastava, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ------------ 5. 27.2.2009. The petitioner, who was the second party in a proceeding under Section 147 Cr.P.C. being Case No.266(M) of 2002 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari, through this application has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 4.9.2004 passed by Sri B.B. Verma, the then Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with Criminal Revision No.173 of 2004, whereby he was pleased to set aside the order dated 13.3.2004 passed in the aforesaid Misc. Case by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari, whereby he had dismissed the proceeding under Section 147 Cr.P.C. It appears from perusal of the order sheet of the instant case - 2 - that by order dated 20.9.2006, peremptory time of one week was granted to the petitioner for taking steps for issuance of notice on O.P. Nos.2 to 6 but that order appears not to have been carried out by the petitioner and by order dated 8.8.2008 orders were recorded regarding the dismissal of this application against O.P. Nos.2 to 6 for non compliance of the peremptory order of this Court dated 20.9.2006 and the case was to proceed only against the State of Bihar, who has been impleaded herein as O.P. No.1. By virtue of the case standing dismissed against O.P. Nos.2 to 6, the order of the Revisional Court has become final and no gainful purpose would be served by keeping this case pending any further. In that view of the matter, this application is dismissed as having become infructuous. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)