Dismissed

Jitendra Kumar Verma v. the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance

Jharkhand HC8 Jan 2020Cr.Rev./132/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a criminal revision to challenge the rejection of his discharge application in a vigilance case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court permitted withdrawal of the petition with liberty to raise points in lower court.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise all points before the learned court below.

Jitendra Kumar Verma Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No.132 of 2019

¶3

Jitendra Kumar Verma, aged about 53 years, son of Kubernath Verma, resident of Kamalbag Colony, Dudhani, P.S. Dumka (T), P.O. & District Dumka … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance … Opposite Party

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶7

¶8

07/08.01.2020 Heard Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶9

2. This revision application has been filed to challenge the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 27.09.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (A.C.B), Dumka in Vigilance Case No.05 of 2017, registered under Section 7/13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whereby and whereunder, an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge was rejected without considering the facts and circumstances of this case, and this case is now pending before the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. – cum – Additional Sessions Judge – XI, Dhanbad.

¶10

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a liberty to raise all the points which have been raised in the present petition as well as any other points that may be available to the petitioner before the learned court below at appropriate stage. He submits that withdrawal of this case may not prejudice his case before the learned court below.

¶11

4. Considering the submissions made, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points which have been raised in the present petition as well as any other points, which may be available to the petitioner under law. It is made clear that withdrawal of this petition

¶12

¶13

will not prejudice the case of either parties in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

5. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶15

6. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed as not pressed.

¶16

7. Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘FAX’.

¶17

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶18

Saurav/

Jitendra Kumar Verma v. the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Verma v. the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Central Coalfields Limited Vs the Union of India And Ors.

Central Coalfields Limited Vs Union of India And Ors.

Niwaran Hansda And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ram Bilash Sahu Vs the Union of India through C B I

Prakash Chandra Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance

B.S.Das alias Bhim Sen Das And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand