This court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging aSessions Judge's order upholding the dismissal of a revision application due to excessive delay and lack of merit at the appropriate stage of proceedings.
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.1479 of 2011
With
I.A. No.2219 of 2011
Jai Prakash Singh. .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
----For the Petitioner : None For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ashish Jha, Advocate -----
Order No.07 Date: 06.02.2019
No one appears on behalf of the petitioner, whereas learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is present.
The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed or quashing the order dated 6th June, 2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Cr. Revision No.93 of 2010, whereby the revision application preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19th February, 2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No.1952 of 2007 has been dismissed.
On perusal of the order dated 6th June, 2011, it appears that vide order dated 5th May, 2011 learned Sessions Judge had directed the petitioner to come ready for hearing on the point of limitation, however, no one appeared in the case despite repeated calls on the next date fixed. Thus, considering that there was a delay of about 714 days in filing the revision application, learned Sessions Judge declined to condone the delay caused in filing of the said revision application by the petitioner. Moreover, on perusal of the order dated 19th February, 2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No.1952 of 2007 it appears that sufficient material was found against the petitioner and co-accused Harun Rashid for the offences punishable under Sections 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Otherwise also, it was not an appropriate stage i.e. before issuance of the summons for consideration of application preferred by the petitioner who was an accused in the said case.
-2-
In view of the aforesaid discussions, I see no infirmity in the order dated 6th June, 2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Cr. Revision No.93 of 2010.
The present petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
I.A. No.2219 of 2011 is also dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the revision application due to delay and lack of merit deserves to be quashed.
Jai Prakash Singh
State of Jharkhand
Chandradhar
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
