Single judge order dismissing a petition to quash criminal proceedings for assault and illegal detention linked to a property dispute. The court held a prima facie case existed and denied quashing, directing petitioners to raise objections at trial.
Liberty granted to raise all points at the appropriate stage during trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 66 of 2018
1.Deepak Kumar Jaiswal 2.Nripendra Kumar Jaiswal 3.Nilay Kumar Jaiswal @ Monti … … Petitioners
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Prem Kumar Jaiswal … … Opposite Parties ---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioners : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Md. Azeemuddin, A.P.P.
4/08.08.2018 Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Md. Azeemuddin, learned A.P.P. for the State.
In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 1318 of 2011 including the order dated 09.09.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 323/342 of the I.P.C.
Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that dispute arises out of the partition suit existing between the petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no. 2. He further submits that the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 are the brothers-in-law of the petitioner no. 1. He further submits that although in the complaint petition, allegation has been levelled against all the accused persons, but in the solemn affirmation, his statement is restricted to petitioner nos. 1 & 2 leaving aside the petitioner no. 3. He further submits that in the said premises, the criminal proceeding as against the petitioners deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer.
It appears to be an admitted fact that the partition suit between the petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 is pending at present. It also appears that there was a pressure created upon the opposite party no. 2 to withdraw the partition suit and to come to a settlement and on refusal the subsequent incident is said to be taken place. Although, in the
-2-
solemn affirmation, complainant has not taken the name of the petitioner no. 3, but it appears that in the complaint petition petitioner no. 3 has also participated in confinement of the petitioner.
In such circumstances, there being prima-facie case existing against all the petitioners, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which is accordingly disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points at the appropriate stage.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
R. Shekhar Cp 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings in connection with IPC 323/342, arising from a pending partition dispute, should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether a prima facie case exists against the petitioners despite partial inclusion in the solemn affirmation.
Deepak Kumar Jaiswal
Nripendra Kumar Jaiswal
Nilay Kumar Jaiswal
The State of Jharkhand
Prem Kumar Jaiswal
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court