Dismissed

Kalpana Rathore v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Feb 2016Cr.M.P./109/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought modification of a criminal order by distinguishing findings that quashed charges under the Indian Forest Act from those under the IPC. The court held that the original order provided sufficient reasons for keeping the IPC case alive and firmly rejected the power to review criminal judgments, dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

Application to modify the order dated 19.02.2015 is dismissed,

Kalpana Rathore Vs the State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 109 of 2016

¶2

¶3

Kalpana Rathore, wife of Ghanshyam Rathore, resident of village – Kuntiapada, P.O. - Jaitgarh, P.S. - Jagarnathpur, District – West Singhbhum (Chaibasa) … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.

¶8

02/05.02.2016 Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State.

¶9

In this application, the petitioner has prayed for modification of the order dated 19.02.2015 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1751 of 2012.

¶10

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to Paragraph – 7 of the order dated 19.02.2015 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1751 of 2012 in which it has been held that based upon investigation there was no material on record to suggest that the Iron Ore seized from the Dumper was extracted from the forest area. This according to the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is contradicted by the findings given at Paragraph -9 of the said order in which it has been noted down that there is nothing has been pointed out to suggest that no case under Section 414/35 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner and in such circumstance, the learned senior counsel prays that the order dated 19.02.2015 be modified accordingly.

¶11

Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, has opposed the prayer made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶12

It appears from a perusal of Paragraph – 7 of the order dated 19.02.2015 that the said finding was with respect to the extraction of the Iron Ore from the forest area and which was seized from the Dumper. Since in course of the investigation it was found that there was no materials to suggest thus the cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 33/42 of the Indian Forest Act had been quashed. The same does not suggest that the case under Sections 414 of the Indian Penal Code also should have been quashed. I find that sufficient

¶13

-2-

¶14

reasons have been given in the order dated 19.02.2015 with respect to the fact that the case under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and, therefore, the order taking cognizance, so far as Sections 414/35 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, was not interfered with. Even otherwise, this Court is not empowered to review the judgment passed in a criminal case.

¶15

In such circumstances, therefore, there being no reason to modify the order dated 19.02.2015 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1751 of 2012, this application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶16

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶17

Umesh/-

Kalpana Rathore v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalpana Rathore v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Raj Kishor Barnwal And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Vs State or Jharkhand And Anr.

Dinesh Kuamr Pathak Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ashok Yadav and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rekha Das And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rati Singh And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand