Dismissed¶38

Shiv Shankar Swarnkar v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC8 Jan 2025Cr.M.P./1383/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC (Ranchi) dismisses Cr.M.P. No. 1383 of 2017 (order dated 08.01.2025, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) — s.482 CrPC petition challenging Revisional Court's (Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih, Cr. Revision No. 60 of 2016) affirmation of SDM Dumri's order in Case No. 150 of 2015 dropping the s.107 CrPC proceeding; Revisional Court's observation that a fresh s.107 proceeding may be initiated on apprehension of breach of peace held to raise only speculative grounds; no precedent cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

The point raised by the petitioner's counsel is merely speculation about the possible initiation of further proceedings and cannot be entertained. ¶37

Shiv Shankar Swarnkar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P.No. 1383 of 2017

¶2

Shiv Shankar Swarnkar, son of Late Ram Awtar Swarnkar, resident of Isri Bazar, P.O. Isri Bazar, P.S. Nimiyaghat, District-Giridih. …. … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Ajit Sonar

¶6

Mahabir Sonar

¶7

Shivpujan Sonar, Nos. 2 to 4 sons of Late Janki Sonar

¶8

Pradeep Sonar, son of Late Ramchandra Sonar

¶9

Bikram Sonar

¶10

Binary Sonar Nos. 6 and 7, sons of Shivpujan Sonar

¶11

Prakash Sonar

¶12

Gautam Sonar

¶13

Diwakar Sonar

¶14

Nos. 8 to 10, sons of Mahabir Sonar

¶15

Shankar Sonar, son of Ajit Sonar,

¶16

Nand Kishore Barnwal

¶17

Sunil Barnwal

¶18

Nos. 12 & 13, sons of Baijnath Barnwal

¶19

Manish Barnwal

¶20

Ravi Barnwal

¶21

Nos. 14 and 15, sons of Late Binod Barnwal

¶22

Baijnath Barnwal, son of late Mahadeo Barnwal, All are residents of Isri Bazar, P.O. Isri Bazar, P.S.-Nimiyaghat, District-Giridih. …. … Opp. Parties

¶23

¶24

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶25

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P. --------

¶26

Order No. 06/ dated 08.01.2025

¶27

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶28

A.P.P. for the State.

¶29

This Cr. Misc. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has

¶30

been filed challenging the order dated 29.03.2027 passed in Cr. Revision No. 60 of 2016 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VI, Giridih whereby and whereunder the order passed by the learned

¶31

Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dumri in connection with Case No. 150 of 2015 under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by which further extension of time for concluding the enquiry was rejected and proceeding was dropped, has been affirmed by the Revisional Court.

¶32

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Revisional Court upholding the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dumri dropping the proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has recorded observation at para 8 of the order that although the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has discretion to extend the period of enquiry in case of existence of reasonable ground and he also found that there is no illegality in the impugned order but at the same time it is observed that if the learned Magistrate finds any reasonable apprehension of breach of peace, the proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. can be initiated to maintain the law and order as it is a preventive measure. The petitioner is obsessed from the aforesaid observation for initiation of another proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, this petition was filed.

¶33

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has submitted that even if the aforesaid observation is not made by the learned trial court in exigency of circumstances, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate is always at liberty to issue a proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. or any other proceeding of like nature. 2

¶34

Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the aforesaid observation or impugned order passed by the Revisional Court

¶35

and this petition is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed.

¶36

I have gone through the record along with impugned order.

¶37

It appears that the point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is only speculation about the initiation of further proceeding and cannot be entertained.

¶38

I do not find any merit in this petition which stood dismissed.

¶39

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶40

P.K.S.

¶41

Shiv Shankar Swarnkar v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Shankar Swarnkar v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

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

Jamil Sk Alias Jamil Akhtar Vs State of Jharkhand

Hasnain Ansari And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Mahjabee Naaz Vs the State of Jharkhand

Parwati Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Janak Mahto And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand Th.M.Prajap

Fitu Sk Alias Noor Alam Vs The State Of Jharkhand