Dismissed¶27

Smt Pramila Kumari And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC7 Jan 2025Cr.M.P./2968/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 144 CrPC order by SDM Ramgarh (Case No. 92 of 2017, dated 04.08.2017) challenged in Cr.M.P. 2968/2017; SDM not entitled to decide right/title/interest; only general observation, no opinion on title warranting interference; order lapsed/lost rider under Section 144 statutory provision, Section 144(4) efflux of time, not binding on either party; criminal miscellaneous petition dismissed; Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.; decided 07.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order contains only a general observation about the previous facts; nothing has been opined regarding the right, title and interest of either party calling for any interference in the impugned order. ¶25

Smt Pramila Kumari And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors. — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the observation regarding right, title and interest of opposite party nos. 2 to 7 recorded in the impugned order is liable to be set aside, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate being not entitled to touch the question of title in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

¶25

Ratio / Principle

In the Court's considered view, the impugned order has lost its rider as per the statutory provision contained under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and is not binding upon either party.

¶26

Key takeaways

There is no merit in the criminal miscellaneous petition, which does not require any interference; accordingly the present Cr.M.P. is dismissed.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi | Cr.M.P. No. 2968 of 2017 (filed 30.10.2017) | Decided 07.01.2025 by Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. — Petitioners challenged the order dated 04.08.2017 passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh in Case No. 92 of 2017, seeking setting aside of observations said to concern the right, title and interest of opposite party nos. 2 to 7, on the ground that the SDM is not entitled to touch the question of title in such a proceeding. The Court found that the impugned order contained only a general observation about previous facts and nothing had been opined regarding the right, title and interest of either party calling for interference. It further held that the impugned order had lost its rider as per the statutory provision under Section 144 Cr.P.C. (the State having urged, per Section 144(4), that the order had lapsed by efflux of time and bound neither party) and was therefore not binding on either party. Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed the Cr.M.P. None appeared for opposite party nos. 2 to 7 despite service of notice and filing of Vakalatnama.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 2968 of 2017

¶3

Smt. Pramila Kumari, wife of Jai Nandan Kumar Singh,

¶4

Jai Nandan Kumar Singh, son of Sri Baleshwar Singh, Both residents of Village – Bankheta, P.O. & P.S. – Ramgarh,

District – Ramgarh.

….. Petitioners

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Alok Kumar Gupta, son of Late Radhe Shyam Gupta, resident of Hazaribagh Road, Kokar, P.O. – Kokar, P.S. – Lalpur, District – Ranchi.

¶10

Chandra Kant Gopalka, son of Late Shyam Sundar Gopalka, resident of GEL Church Complex, P.O. & P.S. – Lower Bazaar, District-Ranchi.

¶11

Arun Agarawal, son of not known to the petitioner,

¶12

Dipak Agrawal, son of not known to the petitioner, both are residents of Kalpataru Complex, Jalan Road, Upper Bazaar, P.O. – Ranchi, P.S. – Kotwali, District – Ranchi.

¶13

Deoraj Mahto, son of not known to the petitioner,

¶14

Avinash Kumar Dubey, son of not known to the petitioner, both residents of Tyre More, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District – Ramgarh.

¶15

….. Opp. Parties

¶16

--------CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶17

-------- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For the O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 : None.

¶18

--------- Order No. 04/Dated: 07^th January, 2025

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP appearing for the State. However, in spite of valid service of notice and after filing of Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 7, none appears on their behalf.

¶20

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 04.08.2017 passed under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh in Case No. 92 of 2017 and present Cr.M.P. was filed on 30.10.2017.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the impugned judgment, there is some observation regarding right, title and interest of opposite party nos. 2 to 7 and the learned SubDivisional Magistrate is not entitled to touch the question of title in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. and the observation recorded by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramgarh is liable to be set aside.

¶22

On the other hand, learned APP opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the impugned order itself has lost its effect by efflux of time as contained under Section 144 (4) of the Cr.P.C. and is not binding upon either of the parties for any purpose whatsoever. Therefore, impugned order has become infructuous having no binding force upon either party. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

I have given anxious consideration to the points raised on behalf of both parties.

¶24

It appears that a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated between the parties in respect of some landed property, but dispute is based upon sole transaction. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, after enquiry, observed that on earlier occasion also regarding the same land, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated, wherein no effective order was passed, rather parties were directed to take shelter of competent civil court to decide their right, title and interest. Petitioners are purchaser from one of the parties in above earlier proceeding.

¶25

It appears that there is general observation about the previous facts and nothing has been opined regarding right, title and interest of either party, calling for any interference in the impugned order.

¶26

In the above circumstances, in my considered view the impugned order has lost its rider as per the statutory provision contained under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. and not binding upon either party.

¶27

Considering the same, there is no merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition, which requires any interference. Hence, the present Cr.M.P. is dismissed.

¶28

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶29

Sunil/-

Smt Pramila Kumari And Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pramila Kumari And Anr. 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

Rajendra Singh And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jaicky Kumar Alias Jaicky Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rupesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Belal Shah Alias Belal Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Hemant Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ensi Enila Lakra Alias Ancy Lakra Vs the State of Jharkhand