Dular Hansda vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 621 Jhar

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 Cr.M.P. No. 2756 of 2021
             Dular Hansda, age about 62 years, W/o Kamal Kishore Murmu, R/o Village-
             Gangta Khurd, P.S. Godda (Town), P.O. & District- Godda ... Petitioner
                                        -Versus-
             1. The State of Jharkhand
             2. Kamal Kishore Murmu, son of Chotka Murmu, Resident of Village
                 Gangta Khurd, P.S. Godda (Town), P.O. & District- Godda
                                                                  ... Opposite Parties
                                            -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.

-----

02/22.02.2022. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned A.P.P. for the State.

This petition has been taken through Video Conferencing in view of

the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due

to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any

technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been

heard.

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.04.2017,

passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda in Execution

Case No.01/2010.

While conducting the cases under the Family Court Act, the Family

Court will be deemed to be a civil court for the purpose of Section 19 of the

Family Court Act. The matter referred to in Section 7 of the Family Court Act

except the matters falling in Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. would be decided after

adopting the procedure prescribed in the C.P.C. All the final judgments and

orders passed by the Family Court are amenable to appeal under sub

section (1) of Section 19 of the Family Court Act, both on law and facts. The

order passed in execution case is final in nature. In view of Section 19 of

the Family Court Act, this petition is misconceived under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

At this stage, Mr. Sah learned counsel for the petitioner seeks

permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appropriate petition

before the competent court of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with the

aforesaid liberty.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/