Disposed

Radhe Shyam Prasad And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC9 May 2018Cr.M.P./3070/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an order taking cognizance under various IPC sections. The petitioner argued the allegations were false due to contradictory statements and lack of belief in assaults against government officers, but the court found the complaint prima facie revealed wrongful confinement and demand of money, leading to disposal without entert

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise all their points at an appropriate stage.

Radhe Shyam Prasad And Anr. Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 3070 of 2017

¶3

¶4

Radhe Shyam Prasad.

¶5

Gopal Mandal ....Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand. 2. Sahdeo Mahto. .....Opposite Parties. --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Vineet Prakash, Advocate For the State : APP ---

¶8

04/9.5.2018 Heard the parties.

¶9

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.7.2017, passed in P.C.R. No. 137 of 2016, by which cognizance has been taken for the offence under sections 341, 323, 385, 379, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶10

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner no. 1 is the Land Acquisition Officer and petitioner no. 2 is an employee in the Land Acquisition Department. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are allegations of assault committed upon the complainant, which is not believable in view of the fact that petitioner is working in the respectable post. It has further been submitted that bald allegations have been levelled against the petitioner of demand of Rs.2,00,000/-.It has also been submitted that there is contradictory statements of the complainant inasmuch as in the complaint petition he has stated that a wrist watch of Rs.2,000/-was snatched but in the solemn affirmation, the value of wrist watch has been mentioned as Rs.800/-.

¶11

Learned counsel submits remedy available to the complainant was a civil remedy but instead he has chosen a wrong forum for redressal of his grievance, which is not permissible.

¶12

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

It appears from perusal of the complaint petition that primary grievance of the complainant is that although his land was acquired but payment was made to some other person. It also appears that for raising such grievance, the complainant was subjected to assault and abuse was also made by the petitioner. The complaint petition prima facie reveals an allegation of wrongful confinement apart from demand of Rs.2,00,000/- and in such circumstances, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which is accordingly disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to raise all their points at appropriate stage.

¶14

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J)

¶15

Rakesh/

Radhe Shyam Prasad And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhe Shyam Prasad And Anr. v. The 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

Ashwini Kumar Sinha And Another Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Roshan Lakra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Digambar Saha And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Yogendra Mahto Alias Yogendra Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand

Bisheshwar Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ravi Kishore Vs the State of Jharkhand