Patna High Court
Syed Zeyarat Hussain and OrsversusState Of Bihar and Anr
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISS FOR NON-PROSECUTION
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
The petitioners, Syed Zeyarat Hussain, his wife Akhtari Bano and son Syed Sujat Hussain, filed an application before the Patna High Court against the State of Bihar and Farjana Anjum. The application was scheduled for hearing on 28 January 2026 and again on 12 February 2026. On both occasions, no counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioners despite repeated calls. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State was present. The Court, noting the absence of any representation for the petitioners, dismissed the application for want of prosecution.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate consequence when petitioners fail to appear or present counsel for a scheduled hearing?
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- want of prosecution
- procedural default
- court dismissal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60258 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2016 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Syed Zeyarat Hussain Son of Late Syed Basharat Hussain
2. Akhtari Bano, Wife of Syed Zeyarat Hussain
3. Syed Sujat Hussain, Son of Syed Zeyarat Hussain, All resident of Mohalla-
Ali Mirza Road, Raza House, Pakki Sarai, P.S.- Muzaffarpur Town, District-
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Farjana Anjum, Daughter of Wase Siddqui, Ex-Wife of Syed Sujat Hussain,
Resident of Mohalla- Data Kambal Shah Road, Imambada Campus, Nai
Bazar, P.S.- Muzaffarpur Town, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : None
For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Renu Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 12-02-2026 On repeated calls, no one appears on behalf of the
petitioners to press this matter.
2. On the previous occasion i.e. on 28.01.2026, also
no one turned up on behalf of the petitioners.
3. However, learned A.P.P. for the State is present.
4. In such view of the matter, this application is
dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U T
Checking your session…