Jharkhand High Court
Shibesh Chandra Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1836 of 2012
------
Shibesh Chandra Mishra ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Swapna Mishra @ Goswami ... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P.
For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
--------
Order No. 08 / Dated: 11th October, 2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as
also learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, are present.
The report called for has not been received from the concerned Court.
Let an explanation be called for from the concerned Court, as to
under what circumstances the report has not been sent to this Court as
called for vide order dated 2nd August, 2022.
Further both the parties are directed to ensure the presence of
husband and wife or their representative in order to explore the
possibilities of resolving the dispute amicably through the process of
mediation by sending the matter in the Mediation Centre, taking into
consideration that it is a matrimonial dispute between the husband and
wife and this petitioner is the younger brother of the husband.
Both the parties are also directed to take the instructions accordingly
from the husband and the wife.
MM (Navneet Kumar, J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1435 of 2013
------
Bhola Sk. & Ors. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shakuntala Devi ... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Aishwarya Prakash Advocate
For the State : Mr. A.P.P.
For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh, Advocate
--------
Order No. 06 / Dated: 11th October, 2022
Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State
as also learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, are present.
Mr. Gautam Kumar Singh, learned counsel has entered into
appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 2.
The present status of this case as called for in the light of the previous
order has not been received.
Let a reminder be sent and also an explanation be called for as to why
the report called for has not been received within the stipulated period of
time.
MM (Navneet Kumar, J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1717 of 2013
------
1. Amar Nath Gupta @ Seth
2. Bina Gupta ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Moni Gupta ... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
--------
Order No. 04 / Dated: 11th October, 2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State
are present.
Pursuant to the previous order the report called for with respect to
the status of this case has been received from the Court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, which is kept at Flag-'R', by which it appears
that both the petitioners Amar Nath Gupta @ Seth and Bina Gupta have
been discharged from this case vide order dated 09.09.2015 as no any
evidence before charge has been adduced by the complainant and in this
view of the matter, this Cr.M.P. has become infructuous.
Accordingly, in view of the said report, this Cr.M.P. is dismissed as
infructuous.
MM (Navneet Kumar, J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1734 of 2013
------
Bishnu Kumar Meharia ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Anand Kumar Agarwalla ... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
For the State : Mr. A.P.P.
--------
Order No. 06 / Dated: 11th October, 2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State,
are present.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks
adjournment to seek instructions from the petitioner.
Permission is accorded and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner is also directed to take fresh steps for the issuance of notice to
the opposite party No. 2, through registered cover with A.D. as also
through ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed within
eight weeks, failing which this application shall stand dismissed without
further reference to the Bench.
MM (Navneet Kumar, J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1750 of 2013
------
Vijay Choudhary
@ Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. M/s. Feegrade and Co. Pvt. Ltd. ... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Petitioner : Md. Asghar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.
--------
Order No. 06 / Dated: 11th October, 2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State,
are present.
No one appears on behalf of opposite party No. 2.
It is made clear that one more opportunity by way of last indulgence
is given to the learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 to appear and argue
the matter, failing which appropriate orders shall be passed on the basis of
the materials available on record.
MM (Navneet Kumar, J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 164 of 2014
------
Satish Singh
@ Satish Kumar Singh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Brijesh Singh ... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
--------
Order No. 10 / Dated: 11th October, 2022
I.A. No. 7447 of 2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State,
are present.
No one appears on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor has any counter
been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that
one Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 7447 of 2022 has been filed
with a prayer to incorporate the proposed amendments which are the
recent developments in the criminal case pending in the Court below
during the pendency of this Cr.M.P. as the discharge petition filed by the
petitioner has been rejected and charge has been framed and the case at
present pending in the concerned Court below is running for the evidence
of prosecution.
It has been pointed out that it is a pure civil nature of dispute as to
who would be the General Secretary of the National Athletic Club and Sri
Sankat Mochan Mandir situated at Kadma, Jamshedpur. It has further been
urged that the entire criminal proceeding pending in the Court below is the
abuse of the process of law and therefore it is urged that let the further
proceeding of the case be stayed and also the subsequent development in
the criminal proceeding for incorporating the subsequent development in
the main petition with respect to the framing of the charge.
-2- Cr.M.P. No. 164 of 2014
Having taken into consideration the aforesaid facts the proposed
amendment as set out by the petitioner in para-4 of the Interlocutory
Application is allowed and let this Interlocutory Application also form a
part of the main application and it shall be deemed to form as a part of the
main petition and to that effect the main application shall be deemed to be
amended.
Having taken into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of this case the further proceeding of the criminal case pending in the
concerned Court below arising out of Kadma P.S. Case No. 45 of 2013,
corresponding to G.R. No. 399 of 2013, shall remain stayed.
Accordingly, the aforesaid Interlocutory Application being I.A. No.
7447 of 2022 stands disposed of.
It is made clear that one more opportunity by way of last indulgence
is given to the learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, to appear and
argue the matter, failing which appropriate orders shall be passed on the
basis of the materials available on record.
MM (Navneet Kumar, J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 720 of 2013
------
Rajendra Prasad-II ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ram Ashis Ram ... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P. (Vigilance)
--------
Order No. 06 / Dated: 11th October, 2022
No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.
Learned counsel Mr. Vishwanath Roy, is present on behalf of the
State and submited that the case has been transferred to the Vigilance
Department.
On the last occasion also when the case was called out, no one had
appeared on behalf of the petitioner and today also no one appears on
behalf of the petitioner even after repeated calls.
It appears that the petitioner has lost interest to pursue this case and
accordingly, in view of the aforesaid fact, this Cr.M.P. is dismissed for non-
prosecution.
MM (Navneet Kumar, J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1516 of 2014
------
Shri Jhareshwar Manjhi ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Smt. Jagriti Singh ... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.
For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar, Advocate
--------
Order No. 08 / Dated: 11th October, 2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as
also learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, are present.
The case is listed after a long period of time i.e. after 29.06.2016.
Let the present status of the case be called for from the concerned
Court regarding the status of the case in the light of the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road
Agency Private Ltd. & Another Versus C.B.I. reported in (2018) 16 SCC 299.
The report must be received within four weeks from the date of
receipt of this order.
Let this order be communicated either through FAX or Email.
MM (Navneet Kumar, J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1525 of 2014
------
Krishna Nand Shastri
@ K. N. Shastri & Ors. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
For the State : Mr. A.P.P.
--------
Order No. 04 / Dated: 11th October, 2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State,
are present.
The case is listed after a long period of time i.e. after 16.07.2014.
Let the present status of the case be called for from the concerned
Court regarding the status of the case in the light of the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road
Agency Private Ltd. & Another Versus C.B.I. reported in (2018) 16 SCC 299.
The report must be received within four weeks from the date of
receipt of this order.
Let this order be communicated either through FAX or Email.
MM (Navneet Kumar, J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1532 of 2014
------
Snehasish Bera
@ Ashish Bera
@ Sneha Ashish Bera ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Chakraverty, Advocate
For the State : Mr. A.P.P.
--------
Order No. 04 / Dated: 11th October, 2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State,
are present.
The case is listed after a long period of time i.e. after 23.02.2015.
Let the present status of the case be called for from the concerned
Court regarding the status of the case in the light of the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road
Agency Private Ltd. & Another Versus C.B.I. reported in (2018) 16 SCC 299.
The report must be received within four weeks from the date of
receipt of this order.
Let this order be communicated either through FAX or Email.
MM (Navneet Kumar, J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1541 of 2014
------
Mani Ahluwalia ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Balbir Singh ... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Praven Kumar Appu, A.P.P.
--------
Order No. 05 / Dated: 11th October, 2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State,
are present.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that
on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties the concerned case
pending in the Court below vide Golmuri P.S. Case No. 274 of 2013, dated
03.11.2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 4015 of 2013, has been disposed of as
per the instructions received on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, it is
submitted that this Cr.M.P. has become infructuous.
Having taken into consideration the aforesaid submission this
Cr.M.P. is dismissed.
MM (Navneet Kumar, J.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1735 of 2013
------
Ram Chandra Das ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Kamla Devi ... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A.P.P.
For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
--------
Order No. 06 / Dated: 11th October, 2022
I.A. No. 3418 of 2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel for
the State Mr. Anup Pawan Topno and learned counsel for opposite party No. 2,
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, are present.
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Cr.M.P. has been
filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking
cognizance dated 19.05.2013 in Marafari P.S. Case No. 71 of 2011, corresponding
to G.R. No. 1610 of 2011, pending in the concerned Court of learned S.D.J.M.
Bokaro. Further it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that during the
pendency of this Cr.M.P. both the parties including the husband and the wife
have resolved their disputes amicably once and for all and a decree of divorce has
also been passed on the basis of settlement agreement arrived at between the
parties in the Mediation Centre, Bokaro.
The learned counsel has pointed out that one Interlocutory Application
being I.A. No. 3418 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating that
on the basis of compromise and settlement the Principle Judge, Family Court,
Bokaro has passed a decree of divorce in Title Matrimonial Suit No. 344 of 2013,
in view of the settlement and compromise arrived at between the husband and
wife a certified copy of the decree in original suit has also been filed alongwith
the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement arrived at between the
parties in Title Matrimonial Suit No. 344 of 2013 which is evident from the
certified copy of the order sheet dated 5.7.2017 where the terms and conditions as
set out in the Mediation Centre amicably between the parties are as under:
-2- Cr.M.P. No. 1735 of 2013
i. mHk;i{k vkil esa ifr&iRuh ds fj'rs dks Lohdkj djrs gSaA
ii. mHk;i{kksa esa ;g lgefr cuh fd os ifr&iRuh ds fj'rs dks vkilh lgefr ds vk/kkj ij foPNsn dj jgs
gSaA os vkt ls viuk&viuk Lora= thou O;rhr djsaxsa ,oa Hkfo"; esa u rks ,d&nwljs ij dksbZ nkok ;k
vkifRr djsaxs u gh ,d nwljs ds futh ftanxh esa dksbZ n[ky djsaxsaA
iii. ;g Hkh lgefr cuh fd izFke i{k jkepUnz nkl f}rh; i{k deyk nsoh dks oSokfgd lac/a k&foPNsn ds
lkFk&lkFk Hkj.k iks"k.k o xqtkjk HkRrk gsrq lHkh dqy cdk;k jkf'k lfgr ,deq'r pkj yk[k pkSgRrj
gtkj (4,74,000/-) :i;s rhu fdLrksa esa Øe'k% fnukad& 01-09-2017 dks nks yk[k :i;s] fnukad
01-11-2017 dks nks yk[k :i;s rFkk fnukad&01-12-2017 dks 'ks"k pkSgRrj gtkj :i;s f}rh; i{k ds
cpr [kkrk esa tek dj nsx a saA blds vykos izFke i{k py o vpy lEifRr ij f}rh; i{k viuk dksbZ
nkok ugha djsaxhA nksuksa i{k viuh futh ftanxh ds ckjs esa dksbZ Hkh fu.kZ; ysus dks Lora= jgsaxsA
iv. mHk;i{kksa esa ;g Hkh lgefr cuh fd buds chp tks Hkh eqdnesa py jgs gSa mls le>kSrk ds vk/kkj ij
lekIr djk ysaxsAa
v. mHk;i{k mijksDr fyf[kr le>kSrs dks i<+ o i<+okdj] le>cw> dj fcuk fdlh ncko ds gLrk{kj cuk
fn,A
Further, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the
compromise and settlement arrived at between the parties, let this Cr.M.P. be
allowed.
On the other hand, the leaned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite
party No. 2, did not controvert this fact that on the basis of compromise and
decree of divorce has been passed between both the parties and the marriage has
been dissolved and therefore, in view of the terms and compromise arrived at
between the parties, let this Cr.M.P. be disposed of.
Learned counsel for the State also submitted that since it is a matrimonial
dispute and compromise has taken place so let this matter be disposed of
accordingly.
Having heard the parties, perused the records of this Case. It is found from
the submission as set out in Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 3418 of 2022,
where the decree of certified copy of the decree of divorce in original suit vide
Title Matrimonial Suit No. 344 of 2013 has been filed by which it appears that as
per the terms and conditions of the Mediation Report dated 5.7.2017 before the
Mediator Sri Mukesh Kumar Pathak the marriage solemnized on 6.6.2003
between the plaintiff and Ram Chandra Das (petitioner) and respondent namely
Kamla Devi (opposite Party No. 2) stands dissolved and the Mediation Report
dated 5.7.2017 will be part of this decree.
Further one of the terms and conditions as set out in the settlement
agreement is that the cases pending between the parties shall be disposed of on
the basis of compromise and settlement arrived at between the parties.
-3- Cr.M.P. No. 1735 of 2013
From the perusal of the terms and conditions of the compromise and
settlement arrived at between the parties, it is found that both the parties have
agreed to the following the terms and conditions.
i. mHk;i{k vkil esa ifr&iRuh ds fj'rs dks Lohdkj djrs gSaA
ii. mHk;i{kksa esa ;g lgefr cuh fd os ifr&iRuh ds fj'rs dks vkilh lgefr ds vk/kkj ij foPNsn dj jgs
gSaA os vkt ls viuk&viuk Lora= thou O;rhr djsaxsa ,oa Hkfo"; esa u rks ,d&nwljs ij dksbZ nkok ;k
vkifRr djsaxs u gh ,d nwljs ds futh ftanxh esa dksbZ n[ky djsaxsaA
iii. ;g Hkh lgefr cuh fd izFke i{k jkepUnz nkl f}rh; i{k deyk nsoh dks oSokfgd lac/a k&foPNsn ds
lkFk&lkFk Hkj.k iks"k.k o xqtkjk HkRrk gsrq lHkh dqy cdk;k jkf'k lfgr ,deq'r pkj yk[k pkSgRrj
gtkj (4,74,000/-) :i;s rhu fdLrksa esa Øe'k% fnukad& 01-09-2017 dks nks yk[k :i;s] fnukad
01-11-2017 dks nks yk[k :i;s rFkk fnukad&01-12-2017 dks 'ks"k pkSgRrj gtkj :i;s f}rh; i{k ds
cpr [kkrk esa tek dj nsx a saA blds vykos izFke i{k py o vpy lEifRr ij f}rh; i{k viuk dksbZ
nkok ugha djsaxhA nksuksa i{k viuh futh ftanxh ds ckjs esa dksbZ Hkh fu.kZ; ysus dks Lora= jgsaxsA
iv. mHk;i{kksa esa ;g Hkh lgefr cuh fd buds chp tks Hkh eqdnesa py jgs gSa mls le>kSrk ds vk/kkj ij
lekIr djk ysaxsAa
v. mHk;i{k mijksDr fyf[kr le>kSrs dks i<+ o i<+okdj] le>cw> dj fcuk fdlh ncko ds gLrk{kj cuk
fn,A
Having taken into consideration the aforesaid facts that it is a matrimonial
dispute between the husband and the wife and a criminal case inter-alia is
pending under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and now the matter has
been resolved once and for all as per the terms and conditions arrived at between
both the parties amicably, the impugned order dated 29.5.2013 and cognizance
order dated 14.3.2013 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Bokaro in Marafari P.S. Case No. 71 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No. 1610 of
2011, is set aside against the petitioner, Ram Chandra Das and this Cr.M.P. is
accordingly allowed in terms of compromise and settlement arrived at between
the parties as above. Consequently, the pending Interlocutory Application being
I.A. No. 3418 of 2022, also gets disposed of, accordingly.
MM (Navneet Kumar, J.)
