POLIMETALA RAVI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of the order dtd. 1/12/2022, notices were issued on the opposite party no. 2 by both modes. It is further submitted that in compliance of the order dtd. 1/12/2022, the notices were filed in time but from the office report, it manifests that the same records that the opposite party no. 2 does not live at the given address.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it absolutely does not stand to reason that the opposite party no. 2, who claims to be the Director of M/s Millennium Infra and Reality Projects Pvt. Ltd., in the FIR has given his address as mentioned in this application but still the service report records that he does not live at the given address which amply demonstrates that he is trying to evade the notice, as such, the notice be deemed to be accepted as validly served. It is further submitted that since the present application has been filed for quashing of the FIR in which it is the duty of the State to prosecute the accused persons, as such, the opposite party no. 2, for the present, is not even a necessary party.