The Single Judge dismissed two criminal miscellaneous petitions. In the first, default was noted despite suspended non-bailable warrants. In the second, relief was denied as the trial was ongoing with one witness left to examine.
The petitioners were dismissed for default; no interim relief was granted.
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. 1520 of 2007
-Versus-
With
Cr.M.P. No. 1453 of 2007
-Versus-
… Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioners : None For the State : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. (In Cr.M.P.-1520/07) Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. (In Cr.M.P.-1453/07) For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate (In both cases) Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Manindra Kumar, Advocate
24/13.03.2023 On repeated calls, nobody has responded on behalf of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the State and opposite party no.2 are present.
On 20.09.2021, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matters were adjourned and were directed to be listed after three weeks. On 07.02.2022, again the matters were adjourned on the request of both the sides. On 06.01.2023, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioners, however the matters were directed to be listed on 27.01.2023.
Today when the matters are taken up, nobody has responded on behalf of the petitioners.
-2-
In Cr.M.P. No.1520 of 2007, only FIR is under challenge. Status report suggests that cognizance has already been taken by the learned court vide order dated 13.09.2011 and non-bailable warrant of arrest has been directed to be issued against the accused persons on 23.04.2013, however the same was suspended in view of the interim order passed in this petition. The cognizance order is not under challenge in this petition and only FIR is under challenge.
In view of the above facts and considering the past records of the petitioners, who on earlier occasions either not appeared or took time, the present petition (Cr.M.P. No.1520 of 2007) is dismissed.
In Cr.M.P. No.1453 of 2007, it appears that out of 7 charge-sheeted witnesses, 6 witnesses have been examined and the case is pending for examination of remaining prosecution witness.
Considering subsequent development and trial is going on and one witness is yet to be examined on behalf of the prosecution, no relief can be extended to the petitioners.
Accordingly, this petition (Cr.M.P. No.1453 of 2007) is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal miscellaneous petitions ought to be dismissed due to default by petitioners after repeated adjournments and suspended warrants.
Whether relief can be extended in the second petition as the trial is ongoing and examination of the last prosecution witness is pending.
Vijay Verma and others
The State of Jharkhand
Anoop Krishna
Vijay Kumar Agarwal and others
State of Jharkhand
Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Jamshedpur
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
