Dismissed¶15

Sanjeev Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC22 Aug 2024Cr.Rev./1209/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sanjeev Kumar Mishra vs The State of Jharkhand and Chanda Devi @ Sweety; Cr. Revision No. 1209 of 2017; High Court of Jharkhand; Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.; revision dismissed for non-prosecution; Section 498A IPC conviction and sentence (RI 2 years + fine Rs. 2,000/-) confirmed; Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2014; C/1 Case No. 110/2003; interim order vacated; direction to serve sentence; Jamshedpur.

What did the court decide?

In view of counsel's inability to contact the petitioner, the revision application is dismissed for non-prosecution. ¶15

Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 1209 of 2017

¶3

Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, son of Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, resident of Samdhi Road, P.O. Road Narayanpur, Rangamatia Classic Lodge Solempur, P.S. Salempur, District Burdwan (W.B.) … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Chanda Devi @ Sweety W/o Sanjiv Kumar Mishra presently residing at C/o Sri R.S. Choudhary, L6/11 Road No. 19 Farm Area Kadma, P.O. + P.S. Kadma, District East Singhbhum Jamshedpur … … Opp. Parties

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶9

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Advocate ---

¶10

09/22^nd August 2024

¶11

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶12

2. This revision application has been filed challenging the judgment dated 11.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge XIII, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2014 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.01.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No. 110/2003 has been confirmed. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with fine of Rs. 2,000/-.

¶13

3. The records of the case reveal hat supplementary affidavit regarding paper publication has not been filed.

¶14

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submits that he is not able to contact with the petitioner.

¶15

5. Considering the aforesaid submission, this petition is dismissed for nonprosecution.

¶16

6. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶17

¶18

7. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶19