Dismissed

Nilima Beck v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC5 Apr 2019Cr.Rev./140/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision application challenging an impugned order that found a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act and IPC against specific accused. Since the trial court had already framed charges and had witnesses examined, the High Court held it could not appreciate evidence and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The revision application was dismissed, and the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps pursuant to a new cause of action.

Nilima Beck Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 140 of 2014

¶2

¶3

Nilima Beck daughter of Gegori Beck, resident of Village Sarnadih, P.O. Baskarcha, P.S.- Mahuadand, District. Latehar.

¶4

..... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Amit Kumar son of Mahesh Prasad

¶8

Renuka Devi wife of Mahesh Prasad

¶9

Amrita Kumari daughter of Mahesh Prasad

¶10

Sarita Kumari daughter of Mahesh Prasad

¶11

Mahesh Prasad son of not known to the petitioner

¶12

...... Opposite Parties

¶13

¶14

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶15

For the Petitioner : None For the State : Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta, Advocate ---

¶16

Order No.07: Dated 05^th April, 2019

¶17

No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.

¶18

The petitioner has preferred this application challenging the impugned order dated 05.06.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Latehar in Complaint Case No. 131 of 2012 whereby the learned Magistrate on the basis of inquiry, was pleased to hold that the complainant is able to make out a prima-facie case under Section 3 (1) (XII) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and under Sections 323, 341, 504 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the IPC against accused Manish Kumar, and a prima-facie case only under Sections 323, 341 & 504 of IPC read with section 34 of IPC is made out against other accused namely Amit Kumar, Renuka Devi, Amrita Kumari, Sarita Kumari and Mahesh Prasad who are Opposite Party nos.2 to 6 in the instant application and they were summoned for inquiry and trial; but the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order as the learned Court below has not taken cognizance or failed to find out a prima-facie case under Section 3(1) (XII) of the SC/ST Act against the accused/opposite party nos. 2 to 6 herein.

¶19

Status report dated 17.02.2018 has been received from District & Additional Sessions Judge-1 Latehar, which transpires that charge has

¶20

¶21

been framed on 20.11.2015. Further, after framing of the charge, one witness has been examined and rest are to be examined.

¶22

As the learned Trial Court is in seisin of the matter, this Court cannot appreciate evidences. As such, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

The petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps, if so advised, pursuant to the new cause of action.

¶24

In the result, the instant revision application is dismissed.

¶25

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶26

Raja /

Nilima Beck v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilima Beck v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

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

Kundan Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anita Mukherjee Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Sanjay Kumar Mukherjee Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Ashwini Kumar Sahu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Yogendra Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shardanand Chourasia Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.