Dismissed

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

Jharkhand HC4 Oct 2023W.P.(Cr.)/84/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking intervention in the withdrawal of a police case was filed. The court observed no order under challenge existed and was not inclined to exercise jurisdiction. Petitioner was permitted to withdraw the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to move the competent court.

M/S Kumar and Rai Construction Represented… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P. (Cr) No. 84 of 2023

¶4

M/s Kumar and Roy Construction represented through its one of the partners, namely, Dilip Kumar …… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand & Others ……Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Kumar Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate

¶8

For the State : Mr. Deepankar Roy, A.C. to G.A.-III 06/Dated: 04/10/2023

¶9

This petition has been filed for withdrawal of Gumla P.S. Case

¶10

No. 266 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No. 853 of 2011, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that government has taken a decision to withdraw the case against the petitioner and pursuant to that the learned A.P.P. has also taken step and filed proper petition before the learned court however, no decision has been taken as yet. He submits that the petitioner has filed representation which is pending before the Officer-inCharge of concerned Police Station at Gumla.

¶12

It appears that the matter revolves among the government, A.P.P. and learned court. There is no order under challenge of the learned court. It is for the petitioner to pursue the matter before the learned court.

¶13

In view of above, the Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶14

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to move before the competent court or authority.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State has got no objection.

¶16

Accordingly, this petition is permitted to be withdrawn and

¶17

disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. Pending I.A. if any, stands disposed of.

¶18

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶19

Satyarthi

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit Gulabchand Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raja Bhadra Vs the State of Jharkhand and Another

Shourbh Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nina Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nirjhar Sahay and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Harihar Prasad Alias Harihar Prasad Khatik And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.