Allowed

Rohan Kumar Jha v. Dipak Kr. Chakraborty

Gauhati HC22 Jul 2019Crl.Pet./832/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a criminal petition challenging a bailable warrant of arrest. The court held that since the underlying case was compounded and the petitioner acquitted, the earlier warrant became inoperative and no effect could be given to it.

What did the court decide?

Directed that no effect be given to the bailable warrant of arrest issued earlier by the trial court.

Rohan Kumar Jha Vs Dipak Kr. Chakraborty — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010154972019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Pet. 832/2019

¶6

1:ROHAN KUMAR JHA

¶7

S/O MR. DURGANAND JHA, R/O SDO(C), BILASIPARA, GAURANGANAGAR, DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783348

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1:DIPAK KR. CHAKRABORTY

¶10

S/O LATE JAGADA NANDA CHAKRABORTY, WARD NO.12, BILASIPARA, P.S.-BILASIPARA, DHUBRI, ASSAM, 783348

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K DAS

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 22-07-2019

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶17

By way of this application under Section 482 read with Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.05.2019 passed in CR Case No.619/2018 whereby the court has issued bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner.

¶18

Referring to the documents annexed and the order dated 28.05.2019 as well as the order dated 06.06.2019 in the said case it has been contended that although in earlier occasion the court has issued bailable warrant of arrest against the accused petitioner but on the next date i.e. on 06.06.2019, on the prayer of the parties the case was compounded u(nder Section 325

¶19

Page No.# 2/2

¶20

IPC) and the accused person i.e. the present petitioner was acquitted from the charge and the case was also disposed of.

¶21

Now the present petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 28.05.2018 wherein the learned court in earlier occasion issued balable warrant of arrest against the present petitioner. It is to be noted that at the time of disposal of the case, it would have been proper on the part of the court to recall the order of warrant of arrest passed earlier or the parties could have also make such prayer to recall the warrant of arrest now the same has not been done in the instant case and the petitioner is still apprehensive of arrest in view of warrant of arrest issued by the court. Needless to say since the case disposed of, the operation of the aforesaid order dated 28.05.2019 is no more in force and it has became inoperative and no effect can be given to such warrant. In view of the given background of the case it is hereby directed that no effect can be given to the said warrant of arrest issued earlier by the trial court.

¶22

With the above observation, this petition stands disposed of.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

Comparing Assistant

Rohan Kumar Jha v. Dipak Kr. Chakraborty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohan Kumar Jha v. Dipak Kr. Chakraborty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Murshed Ali Vs Mustt. Sanjida Khatoon

Sohidul Hoque and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sri Bipin Basumatary Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Biswajit Purkayastha Vs Miss Chandra Biswas

Rajkumar Chaudhury Vs the State of Assam

Biswajit Purkayastha Vs Miss Chandra Biswas