Panchdeo Poddar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 1248 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Panchdeo Poddar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 February, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

              IN      THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    Cr.M.P. No. 710 of 2012
              1. Panchdeo Poddar
              2. Mirtunjay Poddar                                .....   ...    Petitioners
                                             Versus
              1. The State of Jharkhand, through the
                Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
              2. The Director General of Police,
                 Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
              3. The Inspector General of Police,
                 Dumka Range, Dumka.
               4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dumka.
              5. The Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj.
              6. The Superintendent of Police, Godda.
              7. The Officer-in-charge, Taljhari Police Station, Sahebganj.
              8. The Officer-in-charge, Meherma (Thakurgangti) Godda.
              9. Sultana Khatoon                                  ..... ...     Opposite Parties
                              --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

      For the Petitioners     :        None.
      For the State           :        Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P.
      For the O.P. No. 9      :        Mr. R.R. Shekhar Singh, Advocate.
                              ------
06/ 07.02.2024     Nobody has responded on behalf of the petitioners in spite

of repeated calls. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 9 are present.

2. The matter relates to Taljhari P.S. Case No. 21 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 171 of 2011, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rahmahal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 9 submits that the case was fixed before the learned court for judgment and in the meantime, a petition was filed for examination of one of the P.Ws. on behalf of the prosecution and now the further case is fixed 'for orders' in the next week before the learned court.

4. In the present case, only the FIR is under challenge and the matter is reached at the stage of judgment before the learned court and further nobody has come forward to argue the matter, which suggests that the petitioners have lost interest in the matter.

5. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-