Dismissed¶38

Binod Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Nov 2024Cr.A(SJ)/792/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Binod Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 792 of 2023, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., decision date recorded as 05/11.11.2024. Dismissal of complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C.; cognizance; prima facie case; solemn affirmation of complainant; three enquiry witnesses; land dispute; reasons for refusing cognizance; Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, Deoghar; no illegality found; appeal and pending I.A. dismissed. Counsel: Ankit Kumar (appellant), Sanjay Kr. Srivastava A.P.P. (State), Rahul Ranjan (respondents 2-17).

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no illegality in the impugned order dated 31.07.2023 dismissing the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C.; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed. ¶38

Binod Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 792 of 2023

¶2

Binod Prasad aged about 55 years, son of late Chhotan Prasad, resident of Thathera Mohalla, Patharchapti, P.O. and P.S. Madhupur, District-Deoghar

¶3

….. Appellant

¶4

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Subodh Kumar Lal, Son of Late Dayanand Lal

¶6

Ashok Lal, Bon of Late Dayanand Lal

¶7

Laxmi Saw, Son of Late Jivlal Saw

¶8

Siyaram Saw, Son of Late Ramchandra Saw

¶9

Ashok Saw, Son of Late Ramchandra Saw

¶10

Badri Saw, Son of Late Gopi Saw

¶11

Ramesh Saw, Son of Late Banshi Saw

¶12

Gopal Saw, Son of Late Ramprasad Saw

¶13

Ashish Saw, Son of Gopal Saw

¶14

Ganpat saw, Son of Gopal Saw

¶15

Rajesh Saw, Son of Late Shankar saw

¶16

Anand Saw, Son of Dipu Saw

¶17

Chhotu Saw, Son of Dipu Saw

¶18

Anup Saw, Son of Laxmi Saw

¶19

Abhishek Saw, Son of Siyaram Saw

¶20

Siba Saw, Son of Manoj Saw

¶21

All are residents of Ward No 20, Thathera Mohalla, Patharchapti, P.O. & P.S.-

¶22

Madhupur, District- Deoghar

¶23

…... Respondents

¶24

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶26

---

¶27

For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Sanjay Kr. Srivastava, A.P.P.

¶28

¶29

For the Resp. Nos.2 to 17 : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate

¶30

05/11.11.2024 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 17.

¶31

The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 31.07.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 4 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, Deoghar whereby the complaint filed by the appellant has been dismissed under section 203 of Cr.P.C.

¶32

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court has not rightly considered section 203 of Cr.P.C. He submits that if prima facie case is made out the learned court is required to take cognizance. By way of referring impugned order dated 31.07.2023, he submits that without assigning any reason said order has been passed.

¶33

Learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court has applied its judicial mind thereafter passed the said order.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 17 submits that the learned court has looked into solemn affirmation as well as enquiry witnesses and thereafter passed said order. He submits that the said order is well reasoned order.

¶35

In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the materials on record including complaint petition as well as order dated 31.07.2023 whereby learned court has not taken cognizance and dismissed the complaint petition.

¶36

Learned court has looked into the solemn affirmation of the complainant as well as three enquiry witnesses. The learned court found that in reply to the Court question the complainant has deposed that his ancestor has sold the land to the accused persons thereafter the learned court came to the conclusion that the matter relates to land dispute and no case of taking cognizance is made out under section 203 of Cr.P.C and thereafter dismissed the complaint petition.

¶37

In view of above the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 31.07.2023. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed.

¶38

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)

¶39

Satyarthi

¶40

Binod Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Prasad 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

Sandip Mahli Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kapil Dev Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kumbh Nath Singh Alias Kumbhanath Singh Alias K.N. Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abhishek Kedia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baban Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prithi Ram Tudu Vs the State of Jharkhand