Dismissed¶15

Mangal Murmu v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Jan 2024Cr.M.P./1775/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing petition by informant Mangal Murmu against order dated 18.06.2016 in Cr. Revision No. 113/2016 arising out of G.R. No. 2983 of 2015 (S.D.J.M, Jamshedpur) accepting police final form without notice to informant; notice issued 07.10.2015; petitioner aware of final form and had opposed anticipatory bail petition of accused; second revision not maintainable; petition dismissed 03.01.2024; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi.

What did the court decide?

Notice was issued to the petitioner on 07.10.2015 by the learned court, as recorded by the revisional court and found by this Court. ¶13

Mangal Murmu Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 18.06.2016 passed in Cr. Revision No. 113/2016 — by which the learned court accepted the police final form without any notice to the petitioner-informant, and which the revisional court affirmed — should be quashed. +2 more

¶11

Court's answer

Accordingly, the petition seeking quashing of the order dated 18.06.2016 was dismissed as a second revision not maintainable.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Notice was issued to the petitioner on 07.10.2015 by the learned court, as recorded by the revisional court and found by this Court.

¶13

Key takeaways

The petitioner was well within the knowledge of the submission of the final form and, on that very basis, opposed the anticipatory bail petition of the accused persons.ratio¶13
The petitioner purposely did not appear before the learned court even after the court gave reasonable time, and the order was finally passed on 11.04.2016.ratio¶15
Where the petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if injustice is not done in the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C., a second revision is not maintainable.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Jharkhand HC (Ranchi), Cr.M.P. No. 1775 of 2016, decided 03.01.2024 — Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.: Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by informant Mangal Murmu for quashing the order dated 18.06.2016 passed in Cr. Revision No. 113/2016 (arising out of G.R. No. 2983 of 2015, pending before learned S.D.J.M, Jamshedpur), whereby the final form submitted by the police was accepted without notice to the informant and which the revisional court had affirmed. Perusing the revisional order, the Court found notice had been issued to the petitioner on 07.10.2015 and that he was well within the knowledge of the submission of the final form — on that very basis he had opposed the accused persons' anticipatory bail petition (dismissed as not maintainable in view of the final form) and purposely did not appear before the learned court even after reasonable time was given, the order being finally passed on 11.04.2016. Held: where a petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if injustice is not done in the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C., a second revision is not maintainable. Petition dismissed; pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr.M.P. No. 1775 of 2016

¶4

Mangal Murmu .... …Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and Others ..... …Opp. Parties

¶5

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶6

¶7

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate

¶8

Mr. Rajiv Lochan, Advocate For the State :Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. For the O.P. Nos. 2 & 3: Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha, Advocate : Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate For the O.P. Nos. 4 to 6 : Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate

¶9

07/ Dated:-03.01.2024

¶10

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.06.2016 passed in Cr. Revision No. 113/2016 arising out of G.R. No. 2983 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Jamshedpur.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that police investigated the matter and submitted final form and in absence of any notice to the petitioner who is informant, the learned court has accepted the final form. He submits that the said order was challenged before the revisional Court and the revisional court has also affirmed the said order. He submits that the opportunity was not provided to the petitioner who is informant.

¶12

Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 4 to 6 submits that notice was issued to the petitioner on 07.10.2015 and further the petitioner has knowledge with regard to rejection of anticipatory bail petition of the O.P. Nos. 4 to 6 inspite of that no action was taken.

¶13

The Court perused the revisional order and finds that the revisional court has recorded that notice was issued to the petitioner on 07.10.2015 by the learned court. The revisional court recorded that the petitioner was well within the knowledge of submission of final form and on that very basis he has opposed the

¶14

¶15

anticipatory bail petition of the accused persons which was dismissed as not maintainable in view of any apprehension in view of final form and purposely he has not appeared before the learned court even after the court gave reasonable time and finally passed the order on 11.04.2016. The Court further finds that this petition has been filed under section 482 of Cr.P. C. and if injustice is not done in the garb of section 482 of Cr.P.C, second revision is not maintainable. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

¶16

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶17

Satyarthi/-

Mangal Murmu v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangal Murmu v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Shanker Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Ajay Kumar Gupta And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rote Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Harjit Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Anwar Khan Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Shahid Ansari And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Shiv Sharan Sharma And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.