Allowed

Partha Sarathi Ganguly and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Mar 2023Cr.M.P./2746/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought quashing of an order taking cognizance in a criminal case regarding explosives in mines. The Court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings as the matter was already disposed of via Lok Adalat for the same occurrence.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding in connection with Pakur (Malpahari) P.S.Case No.217 of 2009, including the order of cognizance dated 9.3.2011, is quashed.

Partha Sarathi Ganguly and Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2746 of 2012

¶3

----

¶4

1.Partha Sarathi Ganguly 2.Dasharathi Pal 3.Sanjay Mandal .... Petitioners -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand .... Opp. Party

¶5

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶7

--For the Petitioners :- Mr. Kalyan Roy , Advocate For the State :- Mr. S.S.Kumar, Advocate ---14 /14.03.2023 This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 9.3.2011 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur whereby he has been pleased to take cognizance in connection with Pakur (Malpahari) P.S.Case No.217 of 2009, corresponding to G.R.Case No.624 of 2009, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur.

¶8

The FIR has been instituted on the allegation by one Lal Kumar Rajwanshi in which he stated that at about 12.45 p.m he heard some hulla coming from Mines of the petitioner. He went there and found that five persons were lying injured below the stones and some persons were trying to rescue them. He further stated that one labour was found dead and fresh smell of explosive was coming out. He enquired the matter and came to know that six labours were doing work and in the meantime without making any signed and without taking proper care and caution Mines foremen with Manager and Mines Act did explosive in the Mines resulting injuries to the labours.

¶9

Mr. Kalyan Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are there that there was blast in the mines and some injuries have been taken place and one person has died. He submits that the FIR was registered on 23.10.2009 and the learned court has taken congnizance on 9.3.2011. He further submits that for the same occurrence of 9.4.2010 the complaint case has been filed by the Director, Mines Safety and cognizance was also taken on 19.4.2010. He submits that thereafter in the present case, the cognizance has been taken on

¶10

¶11

9.3.2011. He further submits that the sections are compoundable and only two years are the punishment prescribed. He further submits that the complaint case was sent before the Lok Adalat in which fine was imposed upon the petitoners which has been complied with and pursuant thereto the complaint case was disposed of.

¶12

The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State wherein at paragraph no.8 the submission of Mr. Kalyan Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners has been fortified wherein it has been disclosed in the Mega Lok Adalat that Rs.10,000/- has been deposited by the accused persons viz. petitioner nos.2 and 3.

¶13

Mr. Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent State has accepted that for the same occurrence the FIR and the complaint case has been filed.

¶14

Considering that the complaint case has been disposed of in the Lok Adalat and the order of the Court has also been brought on record in the supplementary affidavit and for the same offence the present case is pending wherein the cognizance has been taken. For the same occurrence two cases are not required to be proceeded with. Further in the Lok Adalat the complaint case has already been disposed of and, in that view of the matter, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Pakur (Malpahari) P.S.Case No.217 of 2009, corresponding to G.R.Case No.624 of 2009, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur, including the order taking cognizance dated 9.3.2011 is quashed.

¶15

This petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶16

Pending petition if any also stands disposed of.

¶17

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶18

SI/

Partha Sarathi Ganguly and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Partha Sarathi Ganguly and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

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

Vijay Verma And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dilip Kumar Pradhan And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional Manager Vs Nilu Devi and Ors.

Ashish Anupam Vs Union of India through Sri G S Karan Senior Mining Geologist Indian Bureau of Mines

Ramprasad Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Gopal Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand