Dismissed

Rajesh Ranjan v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC4 Dec 2017Cr.Rev./223/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Cr. Revision No. 223 of 2017, the High Court dismissed an application to condone a delay of 1132 days in filing the revision. The court held that the petitioner's claims of physical disability and lack of awareness were not substantiated by documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

The I.A. for condoning delay, the I.A. for stay of distress warrant, and the main Cr. Revision were all dismissed.

Rajesh Ranjan Vs The State Of Jharkhand And… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 223 of 2017

¶2

Rajesh Ranjan, S/o Sri Vijay Kumar Agrawal @ Vijay Prasad Agrawal, C/o R.P. Tiwary, Bahadurpur Gumti, P.O. & P.S.Bahadurpur, Rajendranagar, Road No. 13B, District- Patna (Bihar). ... … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Vibha Kumari @ Vibha Ranjan, W/o Rajesh Ranjan, D/o Late Vinay Kumar Agarwal, R/o C/o Dillu Mahto, Bariatu Road, P.O.- Bariatu, P.S.- Bariatu, District- Ranchi, StateJharkhand.

¶6

Kshitiz Raj, Aged about -2½ years, S/o Rajesh Ranjan, represented through his mother Vibha Kumari @ Vibha Ranjan, both resident of C/o Dillu Mahto, Bariatu Road, P.O.- Bariatu, P.S.- Bariatu, District- Ranchi, StateJharkhand. ... … Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶8

--------- For the Petitioner : Md. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Mohan, A.P.P. ---------

¶9

04/04.12.2017

¶10

I.A. No. 2733 of 2017

¶11

Heard Md. Razaullah Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suraj Mohan, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶12

In this application the petitioner has prayed for condoning the delay of 1132 days in filing the revision application.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is physically disabled person and he was not aware of the pendency of the maintenance case and only after distress warrant of arrest was issued against him the petitioner could realize about an order passed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against him. It has further been submitted that the father of the petitioner was suffering from Prostate Cancer and therefore the petitioner was busy in getting treatment of his father done. It has therefore been prayed that in such circumstances the delay in filing the revision application be condoned.

¶14

The order dated 17.12.2014 reveals that the petitioner was noticed and in spite of receiving the notice in the case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. he did chose to appear which ultimately led the court below to decide the case exparte. Although the petitioner claims

¶15

-2-

¶16

that he is physically disabled but reliance has been placed on the application preferred by the opposite party no. 2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. in which a vague reference has been made by the opposite party no. 2 that she could after marriage come to know that the petitioner is disabled person. Surprisingly, if the petitioner himself is a disabled person he could have filed documents but no such documents have been filed which would substantiate the contention of the petitioner. The grounds therefore which has been taken by the petitioner for condoning the delay of 1132 days in filing the revision application does not inspire confidence as the same are vague and are not supported by any documentary evidence.

¶17

In such view of the matter, therefore, I do not find any reason to condone the delay in filing the revision application and accordingly I.A No. 2733 of 2017 is, hereby, dismissed. Consequent to the dismissal of I.A. No. 2733 of 2017 Cr. Revision No. 223 of 2017 is also dismissed and so is I.A. No. 4903 of 2017 which has been filed by the petitioner for stay of the distress warrant.

¶18

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶19

Alok/-

Rajesh Ranjan v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Ranjan v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

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

Dhiraj Kumar Singh Alias Rinku Vs the State of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Yusuf Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Arjun Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Neyaz Ansari Vs Ashmina Khatoon and Ors.

Deepak Kumar Vishwakarma Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.