Naushad Ansari v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 2670 of 2012 1. Mafizuddin Ansari 2. Basir Ansari 3. Naushad Ansari Versus The State of Jharkhand ----- .… … Petitioners … … Opp. Party CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD For the Petitioners For the State ----- ----- : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate : APP 02/24.06.2013: First Information Report of Govindpur P.S. Case No.419 of 2011 (G.R. No.4234 of 2011) instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the parties got their dispute resolved. Since, some of the offences are non-compoundable, the petitioners cannot be allowed to compound the offences and, therefore, on
Legal Reasoning
the ground that the matter has been compromised, the first information report never warrants to be quashed. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. Ravi/ (R.R. Prasad, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 2873 of 2012 Sheo Parsan Roy Versus The State of Jharkhand ----- .… … Petitioner … … Opp. Parties CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD For the Petitioner For the State ----- ----- : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.2, Advocate : APP 05/24.06.2013: First Information Report of Kandi P.S. Case No.61 of 2011 (G.R. No.1511 of 2011) instituted under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, is being sought to be quashed on the ground that whatever allegations have been levelled with respect to forgery and misappropriation as well as cheating, those allegations are false and as a matter of fact, the work got completed, but in spite of that, false allegations have been levelled that without completing the work, payment of the amount worth Rs.4,62, 558/- has been misappropriated. The ground on which, the first information report is being sought to be quashed, can never be said to be tenable, as whatever ground has been taken that is defence of the petitioner. Moreover, the case is being investigated upon by the investigation officer. Thus, I do not find any merit in this application and hence, it is dismissed. Notwithstanding the fact that this application got dismissed, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the plea, which has been taken in this application, at an appropriate stage. Ravi/ (R.R. Prasad, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 1291 of 2013 Sant Lal Singh Versus .… … Petitioner The State of Jharkhand Anr. … … Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner For the State ----- ----- : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate : APP 02/24.06.2013: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that order taking cognizance as well as order dated 09.05.2012 whereby and whereunder warrant of arrest has been issued and also order dated 20.12.2012 whereby process has been ordered to be issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. are under challenge, but the petitioner would be confining his prayer with respect to orders dated 09.05.2012 and 20.12.2012 passed in Dhanbad P.S. Case No.258 of 1994 (G.R. No.1728 of 1994). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in a case registered under Sections 380, 409, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, charge sheet was submitted on 04.04.2011, after sixteen years of its institution. The petitioner was on bail. After the cognizance of the offence was taken, summon was ordered to be issued, but without there being any service of summon, warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued on 09.05.2012 and similarly without there being any report relating to execution of the warrant of arrest, process has been ordered to be issued vide order dated 20.12.2012. Thus both the orders being illegal, are fit to be set aside. From perusal of the order sheet concerning G.R. No.1728 of 1994, the contention made on behalf of the petitioner appears to be correct. It does appear that without there being any service of summon, warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued on 09.05.2012 and similarly, without there being any report relating to execution of the warrant of arrest, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been ordered to be issued vide order dated 20.12.2012. In such situation, both the orders dated 09.05.2012 and 20.12.2012 seems to be quite illegal and hence, it is set aside. Consequently, this application stands allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the court below within two weeks from today. Ravi/ (R.R. Prasad, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 1446 of 2013 1. Ajit Kumar 2. Hari Sahu @ Hari Prasad Sahu 3. Snehlata Devi 4. Ajay Sahu @ Ajay Kumar 5. Sanjita Devi @ Sanjeeta Sahu 6. Amit Sahu @ Amit Kumar 7. Ruma Devi @ Ruma Gupta Versus .… … Petitioners The State of Jharkhand Anr. … … Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioners For the State ----- ----- : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate : APP 02/24.06.2013: Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that these petitioners are being prosecuted for commission of the offence under Sections 498A, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but the allegation upon which a case has been registered is not a such, that the party may not come to settlement and that there is every likelihood of matter being compromised in between the parties. In view of the submission, let notice be issued to the Opp. Party No.2, on filing requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D by Friday i.e. on 28.06.2013, on the condition of deposit of a draft of Rs.10,000/- in the name of the Opp. Party No.2 before the Registrar General, so that the same be handed over to the Opp. Party No.2 on her appearance. At the same time, the petitioners would be at liberty to take steps for personal service of notice upon Opp. Party No.2. Let this matter be listed on 29.07.2013 in anticipation of the appearance of the Opp. Party No.2. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners above named, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No.11 of 2013 (G.R. No.250 of 2013) pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga. Ravi/ (R.R. Prasad, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 1458 of 2013 1. Minam Tiwary @ Neelam Devi 2. Lalan Prasad Tewary Versus The State of Jharkhand ----- .… … Petitioners … … Opp. Party CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD For the Petitioners For the State ----- ----- : Mr. B.K. Dubey, Advocate : APP 02/24.06.2013: According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, these two petitioners neither appeared nor any application was filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. in Complaint Case No.622 of 2012 on the date fixed i.e. on 07.05.2013 for the reason that the petitioner no.2, one day before had fallen ill. At the same time, son of the Lawyer of the petitioners had also fallen ill, as a result of which, Lawyer did not attend the court on that date as such nobody was there to place the matter before the court below that since the petitioner no.2 has fallen, he could not come to the court along with the petitioner no.1. Learned counsel in support of his submission, has placed before me prescription of a Doctor, Sadar Hospital, Ranchi. Thus, reason appears to be there, justifying absence of the petitioners on 07.05.2013. Accordingly, order dated 07.05.2013, under which warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners, is hereby, set aside.
Decision
In the result, this application is allowed. The petitioners are directed to appear before the court below on the date fixed. Let a copy of this order be communicated through Fax at the cost of the petitioners. Ravi/ (R.R. Prasad, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. xxxxxx of xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx Versus .… … Petitioner The State of Jharkhand Anr. … … Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner For the State ----- ----- : Mr. ......................Advocate : APP 02/24.06.2013: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State and taking into account the allegation levelled in the complaint, the court seems to have rightly taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 489A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. Ravi/ (R.R. Prasad, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. xxxxxx of xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx Versus .… … Petitioner The State of Jharkhand Anr. … … Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner For the State ----- ----- : Mr. ......................Advocate : APP 02/24.06.2013: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State and taking into account the allegation levelled in the complaint, the court seems to have rightly taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 489A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, order taking cognizance never warrants to be quashed. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. Ravi/ (R.R. Prasad, J.)