Dismissed¶21

Munna Sao Alias Munneshwar Sao v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Mar 2024Cr.Rev./815/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of criminal revision permitted; order under section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning petitioners in S.T. Case No.132/2017 (Barhi P.S. Case No.94/2016) not set aside; warrant of arrest dated 13-09-2022 and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. challenged in I.A. No. 11600 of 2023 held distinct and dismissed; liberty to avail remedies under law; Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.; decided 01.03.2024; Cr. Rev. No. 815 of 2022; Hazaribagh; Barhi police station.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw Criminal Revision No. 815 of 2022 with liberty to raise all points at the appropriate stage as permissible under law; I.A. No. 11600 of 2023 dismissed, with liberty reserved to pursue available remedies under law. ¶21

Munna Sao Alias Munneshwar Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision seeking setting aside of the order dated 16.06.2022 (allowing the informant's petition under section 319 Cr.P.C. and directing summons to the petitioners) should be permitted to be withdrawn. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The petitioners are permitted to withdraw Criminal Revision No. 815 of 2022, and it will be open to them to raise their points at the appropriate stage as permissible under law.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The prayers made in I.A. No. 11600 of 2023 are subsequent developments, distinct from the prayers made in the revision application, and are not fit to be allowed in the present proceedings.

¶21

Key takeaways

Since the revision application is dismissed as withdrawn, I.A. No. 11600 of 2023 is also dismissed.ratio¶21
Dismissal of the interlocutory application will not be an impediment to the petitioners availing such remedies as may be available under law.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 815 of 2022, directed against the order dated 16.06.2022 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Hazaribagh allowing the informant's petition under section 319 Cr.P.C. and directing issuance of summons to the petitioners in S.T. Case No.132/2017 (arising out of Barhi P.S. Case No.94/2016), was permitted to be withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners to raise their points at the appropriate stage as permissible under law. The interlocutory application I.A. No. 11600 of 2023, seeking quashing of the order dated 13-09-2022 whereby warrant of arrest was issued against petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued, was held to concern subsequent developments and prayers distinct from those in the revision, and was accordingly dismissed, with the clarification that its dismissal would not impede the petitioners from availing remedies available under law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Rev. No. 815 of 2022

¶3

Munna Sao @ Munneshwar Sao, aged about 48 years, S/o Late Kishun Sao

¶4

Shashi Sao @ Shashi Kr. Saw aged about 23 years, S/o Badri Sao

¶5

Sikander Sao @ Suraj Sao @ Suraj Kumar aged about 29 years, S/o Bhuneshwer Sao, all Resident of Village Karsi, P.O. & P.S. – Barhi, District - Hazaribagh … … Petitioners Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand

¶7

Yamuna Prasad Yadav, S/o late Munna Gope @ Munna Mahto resident of Karso, P.O. & P.S. Barhi, District Hazaribagh.

¶8

… … Opposite Parties

¶9

¶10

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶11

--For the Petitioners : Mr. P.P.N Roy, Sr. Advocate : Ms. Pragati Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate

¶12

¶13

12 /01.03.2024 The learned counsels for the parties are present.

¶14

2. This criminal revision has been filed for the following relief:

¶15

“That this Revision application is being filed before this Hon’ble Court for setting aside the order dated 16.06.2022 passed by Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, the learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Hazaribagh, in S.T. case No.132/2017 arising out of Barhi P.S. Case No.94/2016 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Hazaribagh allowed the petition filed by the informant under section 319 of Cr.P.C. and O/C is direction to issue summons to the petitioners. The case is pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Hazaribagh.”

¶16

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has received instructions to withdraw this criminal revision. He has also submitted that observation may be made to enable the petitioner to take all the points before the court concerned and may be available to the petitioner as per law.

¶17

4. The learned counsel further submits that one interlocutory application being I.A No. 11600 of 2023 has been filed in the present case for quashing the order dated 13-09-2022, whereby warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3, and process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C has also been issued. The process under section 82 of Cr.P.C is also under challenge through this interlocutory

¶18

¶19

application. The learned counsel submits that liberty be reserved with the petitioner to avail their remedy with regard to the prayers made in the interlocutory application by filing separate petition.

¶20

5. With regard to the prayer for withdrawal of Criminal Revision No. 815 of 2022, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw this revision application. However, it will be open to the petitioners to raise their points at appropriate stage as permissible under law.

¶21

6. So far as interlocutory application being I.A. No. 11600 of 2023 is concerned, those are subsequent developments and the present stage of the case is not on record. The prayers made in the interlocutory application are distinct from the prayers made in the revision application and such prayer made through interlocutory application are not fit to be allowed in the present proceedings. Since this revision application is being dismissed as withdrawn, I.A. No.11600 of 2023 is also dismissed.

¶22

7. However, dismissal of the interlocutory application also will not be an impediment in way of the petitioners to avail their remedies as may be available under law.

¶23

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶24

Saurav

Munna Sao Alias Munneshwar Sao v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Sao Alias Munneshwar Sao v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Besra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pinku Bhuiya Alias Pinku Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dhurb Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranju Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Yogesh Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kaustubh Infra Space through Its Authorized Representative Cum Partner Ajay Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand