Allowed

Ranjit Kumar And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC22 Aug 2023Cr.M.P./1788/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Cr.M.P. No. 1788 of 2017, the High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings under IPC Sections 420, 403, 468, 504, 120B/34 arising from a land dispute. Relying on a filed compromise petition and confirmation of possession by the complainant, the court held that the dispute was amicably settled.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings, including the order taking cognizance dated 18.05.2017, are hereby quashed.

Ranjit Kumar And Ors. Vs The State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 1788 of 2017

¶3

Ranjit Kumar

¶4

Raj Kumar Gupta

¶5

Sanjay Sahu

¶6

Shyam Kumar Sahu

¶7

Raj Keshwar Prasad 6. Ram Kumar Sahu 7. Ramshran Prasad 8. Suresh Kumar 9. Ram Krishna Sahu 10. Ranjit Kumar Sahu ..... … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Om Prakash ..... … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI -----For the Petitioners : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.A.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Ms Kashyapi, Advocate. ------

¶8

07/ 22.08.2023 Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Someshwar Roy, learned A.P.P. for the State and Ms Kashyapi, A.C. to Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

¶9

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 18.05.2017, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 420, 403, 468, 504 and 120B/34 of IPC, in connection with Complaint Case No. 2269 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ranchi.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is dispute between the parties with regard to transfer of land and the allegations are made that the land has not been transferred in favour of the O.P. No. 2. He submits that during the pendency of the case, good sense has prevailed between the parties and before the learned court, a petition has been filed for compromise. He further submits that the case has already been compromised between the parties and the land has been handed over to the O.P. No. 2 and in view of the said compromise, the civil cases, pending before the parties have already been disposed of, which is evident from Annexures-1 and 2 of the I.A. No. 7284 of 2023.

¶11

The complaint-O.P. No. 2 is also present in the court and on query from the court, the complainant Om Prakash, Son of Late Mahesh Prasad submits that the case has amicably been settled between the parties

¶12

-2-

¶13

and civil cases have already been disposed of. He also submits that now he is in occupation of the land in terms of the said compromise. He further submits that he does not want to proceed with the case any further.

¶14

Ms Kashyapi, learned A.C. to Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, appearing for the O.P. No. 2 also accepts the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the complainant, who is present in the court in person. She submits that in view of the statements made in I.A. No. 7284 of 2023, the case may kindly be quashed.

¶15

It appears from I.A. No. 7284 of 2023 that the civil cases have already been disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties and the compromise petition has been annexed as Annexure-3 to this I.A., which has been filed before the learned court, wherein it has been disclosed that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and in view of that entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed.

¶16

In view of the above, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 18.05.2017, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 420, 403, 468, 504 and 120B/34 of IPC, in connection with Complaint Case No. 2269 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ranchi, are hereby, quashed.

¶17

This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶18

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶19

Amitesh/-

Ranjit Kumar And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Kumar And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Tiwary Alias Bikash Tiwary Alias Bikash Nath Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Sidharth Nath Shahdeo Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Iltush Ahamad Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Smt Pulkeria Bhengraj Alias Anna Orea Vs the State of Jharkhand through CBI Ahd

Abhay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prakash Kumar Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand