Dismissed

Tinku Mian Tinku And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC5 Mar 2013Cr.M.P./717/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench dismissed a substantive Special Leave Petition challenging the framing of a charge. On interlocutory applications, one was dismissed as not pressed while the other was allowed to form part of the main application, resulting in the dismissal of the main writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Prayer in the interlocutory application allowed; main writ petition dismissed.

Tinku Mian Tinku And Anr. Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2013)

¶1

In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

¶2

Cr.M.P. No.717 of 2011

¶3

Tinku Mian @ Tinku

¶4

Pinku Mian @ Pinku ...........................................Petitioners

¶5

V E R S U S

¶6

State of Jharkhand and another....................Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD

¶8

For the Petitioners :Mr.Ranjan Kumar Singh For the State :A.P.P

¶9

2/ 5.3.13. I.A.No.1460 of 2011

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he is not pressing the aforesaid interlocutory application.

¶11

Accordingly, the aforesaid interlocutory application is dismissed as not pressed. I.A.No.1135 of 2012

¶12

This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 19.5.2012 wherein charge has been framed under Sections 341 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that initially this application was filed for quashing of the order under which the petitioners had been summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to face trial and while the matter was pending since the charge has been framed, necessity arose for filing this application which be allowed.

¶14

In the facts and circumstances stated above, prayer made in the interlocutory application is hereby allowed.

¶15

The aforesaid I.A form part of the main application.

¶16

Cr.M.P. No.717 of 2011

¶17

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State on the main application.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had initially been named in the F.I.R wherein overt acts have also been alleged against these petitioners but the police during investigation did not find allegation against these petitioners to be true and therefore, final form was submitted which was even accepted

¶19

by the court. In spite of that, when the prosecution led some witnesses, they also alleged some overt acts against these petitioners and thereby an application was filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners. These petitioners were summoned to face trial, vide order dated 1.3.2011, though final form had earlier been submitted which had even been accepted and thereby the court below did commit illegality in summoning the accused persons in exercise of the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

In exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the court is to see as to whether there has been any evidence against the persons who are being sought to be summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

Here, in the instant case, after going through the impugned order, it does appear that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have testified wherein they have stated about active role being played by these petitioners and therefore, the court never seems to have committed any illegality in passing the impugned order.

¶22

Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.

¶23

(R.R. Prasad, J.)

¶24

ND/

Tinku Mian Tinku And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tinku Mian Tinku And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

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

M/S Jay Bee Enterprises Throug Vs Sri Shiv Basant And Anr.

M/S Jay Bee Enterprises Throug Vs Sri Shiv Basant And Anr.

Maqsud Ansari Alias MD Maqsood Ansari Alias Maqusud Ansari Alias Maksud Ansari Vs State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi

Birendra Kumar Singh Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Yogendra Baraik Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ganga Prasad Gupta Vs Sheela Devi