Dismissed

Dilip Kumar Verma and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC5 Oct 2023Cr.M.P./1223/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed two petitions under Cr.M.P. challenging the FIR. The court held that an alternative remedy exists via the final form submitted by the State. Pending interlocutory applications were also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed with liberty to avail alternative remedy before the Magistrate; pending IAs dismissed.

Dilip Kumar Verma and Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 1223 of 2013

¶3

Dilip Kumar Verma

¶4

Ganpat Rajak ..... … Petitioners Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand. 2. Sanjiv Kumar Ravi ..... … Opposite Parties with

¶6

Cr.M.P. No. 2221 of 2012

¶7

Dharmendra Kumar Sharma

¶8

Suresh Prasad Gupta ..... … Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Jharkhand.

¶11

Sanjiv Kumar Ravi ..... … Opposite Parties

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶14

-----For the Petitioners : Ms Aanya, Advocate. : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. : Mr. S.K. Shukla, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Dr. V.K. Roy, Advocate.

¶15

¶16

05/ 05.10.2023 In both these cases, only the FIR is under challenged, being Giridih Nagar P.S. Case No. 209 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 2143 of 2012, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.

¶17

Mr. S.K. Shukla, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State in Cr.M.P. No. 2221 of 2012, on instruction, submits that the counter affidavit is ready, wherein it has been disclosed that the final form has already been submitted. Let the said counter affidavit be taken on record.

¶18

In view of such submission of the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and also looking into the averment made in the counter affidavit, it appears that the final form is there and if the final form is there, the petitioners are having the alternative remedy.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 1223 of 2013 submits that she has not been able to take instruction in the matter, as such, the matter may be adjourned.

¶20

The court has considered the FIR as well as the submission of learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the averments made in the counter affidavit, which has been taken on record. It transpires that the final form is there and what are the materials in the

¶21

-2-

¶22

final form that is not before the court and in view of that no case of quashing of the FIR is made out.

¶23

Accordingly, both these petitions are dismissed with the liberty to the petitioners, if they so advised, may avail the alternative remedy.

¶24

Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed.

¶25

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶26

Amitesh/-

Dilip Kumar Verma and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Verma and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

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

M/S Kumar and Rai Construction Represented through Its One of the Partners Dilip Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nina Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nirjhar Sahay and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sumitra Barman Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jaishree Kaman Kachhap Vs the State of Jharkhand

Som Prakash Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand