Dismissed

Sumitra Devi and Anr. v. State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC1 Sept 2014Cr.M.P./973/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an order for issue of process. The petitioners sought quashing of proceedings for alleged IPC offences but were not present; the court found no merit in the application.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing the criminal proceeding and challenging the impugned order is dismissed.

Sumitra Devi and Anr. Vs State Of Jharkhand And… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 973 of 2013

¶2

Sumitra Devi 2. Nilkanth Prasad Sahu ..... … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kaushal Kishore .…. … Opposite Parties -------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioners : None. For the State : A.P.P. ------

¶3

03/ 01.09.2014 On the last occasion, no one had appeared for the petitioners in spite of repeated calls, and the case was adjourned. Today also, no one appears for the petitioners in spite of repeated calls.

¶4

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.1.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Complaint Case No. 648 of 2011, whereby upon an inquiry, the Court below has found prima facie offence under Sections 323, 379, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, and has ordered for issuance of process against them. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in the said complaint case against them.

¶5

From perusal of the complaint case, it appears that there is allegation against the petitioners to have allowed the flow of water from their roof on the house of the complainant, which was built with mud mortar, due to which the house of the complainant was damaged and when the complainant objected to that, it is alleged that the accused persons abused and assaulted the complainant and his wife and took away the cash and ornaments of the wife of the complainant.

¶6

The complainant has supported his case on solemn affirmation and it appears from the impugned order that some witnesses were also examined at the inquiry stage, and upon enquiry, the Court below has found prima facie offence under Sections 323, 379, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶7

I do not find any reason for interference with the impugned order, or the criminal proceeding against the petitioners at this stage. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

¶8

Amitesh/-

Sumitra Devi and Anr. v. State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumitra Devi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Marandi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Gopi Krishna Nathani Vs The State Of Jharkhand Throuogh Cbi

Daya Singh and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jag Narayan Das and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ashok Singh Vs State Of Jharkhand

Vijay Prasad Gupta Vs The State Of Jharkhand