The court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition as infructuous. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge was framed, prosecution witnesses were examined, and the trial was concluding, rendering the challenge to the 2010 cognizance order unnecessary.
The Cr. M.P. is dismissed as infructuous.
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. 235 of 2012
------
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Parties
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Lina Shakti, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, A.P.P. : For the Opp. Party No. 2
Order No. 07: Dated: 25th April, 2022
Learned counsel for the parties is present.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now the charge has been framed against the petitioners and several witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and the trial is at its fag end on its conclusion and, therefore, it is fairly submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this case has become infructuous , in view of the fact that the impugned order is dated 22.09.2010 by which the cognizance has been taken against this petitioner is under challenge.
In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, let this Cr.M.P. be dismissed as infructuous.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
MM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present Cr. M.P. is maintainable given that the trial is nearing conclusion and the impugned order of taking cognizance from 2010 is now of no practical consequence.
Jamaluddin Rangsaz and others
The State of Jharkhand
NAVNEET KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
