Dismissed

Suraj Paswan v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC26 Feb 2018Cr.Rev./1671/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment records two orders: first, an I.A. for condonation of delay in Criminal Revision No. 1671 of 2017 was allowed; second, the Criminal Revision was dismissed, upholding the trial court's rejection of the discharge application due to prima facie evidence of offence.

What did the court decide?

Allowed condonation of 38 days delay; Dismissed the Criminal Revision with no interference to the trial court order rejecting discharge.

Suraj Paswan Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Jharkhand HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 1671 of 2017

¶3

¶4

Suraj Paswan, son of Late Ram Charitra Paswan, resident of New Pandey Nursing Home, Kusai Basti, Namkum Road, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi … … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Alka Seema Ekka, daughter of Sushil Ekka, resident of village Pusppur, Garhatoli, P.O., P.S. and District Simdega

¶8

… … Opp. Parties

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner : Ms. Asmita Shrivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nehru Mahto, A.P.P. ---

¶12

I.A. No. 1447 of 2018

¶13

06/26.02.2018 Heard Ms. Asmita Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Nehru Mahto, learned A.P.P., for the State.

¶14

This interlocutory application has been preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 38 days in filing the revision application.

¶15

Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed and the delay of 38 days in filing the revision applications is, hereby, condoned.

¶16

I.A. No. 1447 of 2018 stands disposed of.

¶17

Cr. Revision No. 1671 of 2017

¶18

This application is directed against the order dated 14.07.2017 passed in Mahila P. S. Case No. 16 of 2016 by which the discharge application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶19

It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant was already married and when this fact came to the notice of the petitioner he has refused to marry the informant which resulted in institution of a complaint case. Learned counsel further submits that even the witnesses have stated so in their evidence.

¶20

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.

¶21

Although learned counsel or the petitioner has stressed much

¶22

upon the fact that the petitioner had refused to marry the informant on coming to know that the informant was already married but the fact

¶23

-2-

¶24

which has been narrated in the complaint petition is otherwise inasmuch as, it has been stated that the informant herself had disclosed about her marriage which was solemnized with another person as the petitioner was putting pressure upon her to solemnize marriage with him. It further appears that on denial the petitioner had assaulted the informant and had also outraged her modesty.

¶25

In fact from the impugned order dated 14.07.2017, it appears that some of the prosecution witnesses have supported the said fact. On such context, therefore, I am not inclined to cause interference in the order dated 14.07.2017 and this application, therefore, without merit is, hereby, dismissed.

¶26

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶27

Umesh/-

Suraj Paswan v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Paswan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Kumar Alias Rahul Raja Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ajay Kumar Rai and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Sadhna Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Raj Kumar Jaiswal Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Kamlesh Yadav And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Manjusree Mazumdar Vs the State of Jharkhand