Dismissed

Arun Kumar Alias Arun Turi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 May 2019Cr.M.P./3452/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings involving allegations of child exploitation and failure to return a domestic helper. The court dismissed the petition, citing the petitioner's disregard of previous orders to surrender, rather than acting on the claim of voluntary compromise.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings and information pertaining to the same is rejected and the petition is dismissed.

Arun Kumar Alias Arun Turi Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.3452 of 2018

¶3

Arun Kumar @ Arun Turi ….. Petitioner Versus

¶4

1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Elizabeth Bilung ….. Opp. Parties

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P ---------

¶7

06 /Dated: 14th May, 2019

¶8

1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the F.I.R being Simdega A.H.T.U Case No.18 of 2015 (G.R. No.311 of 2015), registered under Sections 363, 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 23/ 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2000, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega.

¶9

2. Learned counsel, for the petitioner, has submitted that the victim girl in her statement has categorically stated that co-accused Rajani Minz had not handed over her to this petitioner. That in fact, the informant, i.e., the mother of the victim has compromised the case voluntarily with this petitioner and she does not want to prosecute the case

¶10

On the above ground, prayer has been made for quashing the entire criminal proceedings.

¶11

3. Learned A.P.P., has submitted that allegation is that this petitioner along with co-accused had persuaded the minor girl, aged about 10 years, to do the job of maid servant. That for the period the victim was employed she was not paid the wages. The petitioner was running a placement agency and the victim girl was handed over to him five years ago. The informant had requested this petitioner to return her daughter and the petitioner had stated that the informant's daughter was working as a domestic help and refused to hand over the daughter to her mother. It is submitted that earlier this petitioner had filed Cr.M.P. No.2514 of 2016 and by order dated 02.02.2017, the processes issued under

¶12

- 2 -

¶13

Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C were quashed. Thereafter, the informant had filed anticipatory bail petition no.23 of 2017 which was rejected by the court below, vide order dated 27.04.2017, directing the petitioner to surrender in the court below, within fifteen days, but the petitioner did not surrender. In the given facts the court below ordered for issuance of processes for securing the appearance of the petitioner in the case which has lingered due to nonappearance of this petitioner.

¶14

4. Heard. Considering the nature of allegation the prayer for quashing the criminal proceeding stands rejected. It is not disputed that despite quashing of the processes issued under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C., in Cr.M.P. No.2514 of 2016, the petitioner did not appear in the court below. In fact, he filed an anticipatory bail petition which was rejected on 27.04.2017 and petitioner was directed to surrender in the court below within fifteen days. Despite the direction of the court the petitioner avoided to appear in the court below. Consequently, the court ordered for issuance of processes under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C by orders dated 18.07.2017 and 06.01.2018 respectively..

¶15

It is apparent from the exposited facts that the petitioner has not abided by the orders of the court. Thus, in the attending circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

¶16

5. In the result, the criminal miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.

¶17

(AMITAV K. GUPTA, J.)

¶18

Chandan /-

Arun Kumar Alias Arun Turi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Alias Arun Turi 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

Chinta Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Subhash Layak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jagarnath Mahto Alias Jagannath Mahato Vs the State of Jharkhand

Narendra Kumar Verma Vs State of Jharkhand

Rahul Kumar Ravidas Vs the State of Jharkhand