Shahid Ansari And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs.Ruby Pandey and Mr. Fahad Allam, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

¶20

These petitions have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR arising out of Jainagar P.S. Case No.74 of 2016, G.R. No.444 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, at Koderma. 4. The First Information Report has been registered on the written report of the Circle Officer, Jainagar stating therein that compensation amount has been defalcated by the accused persons by impersonation of producing forged documents of Khata No.24,

¶21

2

¶22

Thana No.48, Mouza Basodih. The court of learned Additional Collector, Koderma has passed an order for compensation regarding land acquisition in Misc. Case No.1 of 2014. The land was taken by the Government under Khata no.24, plot nos.1144, 1079, 1066, 1051, 1049 and 1059 total area 8.41 acres by the settlement and Hukumnama of Hayedat Ansari, Noor Mohammad, Barasat Ali, Kifayat Ali, all are sons of late Chetu Mian jointly their name has been entered into the Register-II. Md. Mahboob Ansari, Md. Habib Ansari and Md. Mustafa Ansari, all sons of late Hayedat Ansari has prepared a false document regarding Hukumnama and taken the compensation amount of Rs.33,07,031/-. It is stated in the FIR that 1/3^rd of land has been grabbed by the accused persons and on 20.08.2014 an order has been passed to institute the case against Md. Mustafa Ansari who died on 7.8.2015 and their sons namely have been implicated in this case.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that land of the father of the petitioners has been acquired by the D.V.C and compensation of Rs.33,07,031/- was taken by father of the petitioners and unnecessarily they have been implicated in the FIR.

¶24

Mrs. Ruby Pandey, the learned counsel in Cr.M.P. No.2149 of 2016 and Mr. Fahad Allam, the learned counsel in Cr.M.P. No.1848 of 2016 appearing on behalf of the respondent State submit that charge has been framed by the learned court and evidence is going on and she submits that in paragraph no.6 of the case diary it has come that in the proceeding before the Additional Collector, Koderma in Misc. Case No.1 of 2014 it has come that those petitioners have defalcated a sum of Rs.33,07,031/- being compensation.

¶25

The said argument of Mrs. Ruby Pandey, the learned counsel for the respondent is being resisted by Mr. Tewari, the

¶26

3

¶27

learned counsel for the petitioners by way of reply referring to paragraph no.10 of the proceeding of Misc. Case No.1 of 2014 and submits that the said land was in the joint possession of the father of the petitioners and other brothers of the father of the petitioners.

¶28

The Court finds that there is allegation in the First Information Report that on the basis of forged documents a sum of Rs.33,07,031/- was taken. The allegations are also there of taking the part of the amount with regard to 1/3^rd share of others and thus, there are allegations in the FIR. Further the charge has already been framed and the learned court has proceeded in the matter. What are the materials in the charge sheet is not before the Court and prima facie case is made out and what has been argued by Mr. Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioners is the defence which can be considered only by the learned court and only the FIR is under challenge in this petition.

¶29

In view of the above, no case of interference is made out.

¶30

Cr.M.P. No.1848 of 2016 and Cr.M.P. No.2149 of 2016 are

¶31

dismissed.

¶32

Interim order is vacated.

¶33

These petitions have been filed with regard to quashing of the entire criminal proceeding, the trial will proceed in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

¶34

The learned trial court may expedite the trial.

¶35

Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶36

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶37

SI/,

Shahid Ansari And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahid Ansari And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

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.

Mangal Murmu Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Anwar Khan Vs The State Of Jharkhand

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