Dismissed

Seraj Mian v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Dec 2019Cr.M.P./1451/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the dropping of Section 144 Cr.P.C. proceedings which had expired. The Court held that despite expirity, a fresh proceeding could be initiated if a fresh cause of action arose, but dismissed this petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to approach competent authority for fresh Section 144 proceeding if fresh cause of action arises.

Seraj Mian Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1451 of 2018

Seraj Mian

... Petitioner(s).

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Birendar Prasad

¶7

The Executive Engineer,

¶8

Minor Irrigation Department, Latehar.

¶9

The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Latehar

¶10

The Secretary, Fishery Co-operative Society, Dharampur, Latehar. … Opp. Party(s).

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN .

¶12

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tapash Kabiraj, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P.

¶13

06/02.12.2019: The matter relates to a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C, whose life is only for 60 days.

¶14

An application filed under Section 144 Cr.P.C, by the petitioner, was registered as Misc. Case No. 302 of 2017. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Latehar dropped the proceeding by detailed order. The revision being Cr. Rev. No. 27/2017, filed by the petitioner, before the learned Sessions Judge, Latehar was also dismissed vide order dated 16.3.2018.

¶15

The petitioner challenging the order dated 16.3.2018 submits that the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C could not be dropped on the facts of the case.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶17

I find that the final order was passed by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Latehar, is dated 4.10.2017. For the sake of argument, even if it is taken into consideration that the court would allow the petition in favour of the petitioner, the life of the proceeding is 60 days. Further I find that there is no bar initiating a fresh proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C if fresh cause of action arises.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent civil court or the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate for initiation a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C, if at all any fresh cause of action arises.

¶19

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

¶20

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶21

Anu/C.P.-3

Seraj Mian v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seraj Mian 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

Sanjay Kumar Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Siddique Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bablu Soni Alias Rajendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajiv Kamal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashis Gupta Alias Ashish Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pratima Devi Vs State of Jharkhand