Chandra Nath Bhagat vs Mahabir Kujur
2024 Latest Caselaw 10007 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Chandra Nath Bhagat vs Mahabir Kujur on 16 October, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                          W.P. (Cr.) No. 197 of 2020
                                       ----

Chandra Nath Bhagat, aged about 47 years, son of Late Somra Bhagat, by caste - Schedule Tribe, by occupation - Farmer, by sex - Male, by religion - Hindu, R/o - Village - Puriyo, PO - Puriyo, P.S. - Ratu, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand .... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1. Mahabir Kujur

2. Jhariya Kujur

3. Santosh Kujur All S/o - Late Charwa Kujur, R/o - Village - Tugduru, PO and PS

- Itki, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand

4. Shiv Narayan Bhagat, S/o - Late Kali Bhagat

5. Rajendra Bhagat, S/o Shiv Narayan Bhagat

6. Mahabir Bhagat, S/o - Late Balakeshwar Bhagat

7. Vishnu Bhagat, S/o - Late Gangadhar Bhagat All are R/o - Village and PO - Puriya, PS - Ratu, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand

8. Senior Superintendent of Police, PO, PS and District - Ranchi

9. Rural Superintendent of Police, PO, PS and District - Ranchi

10. Circle Officer, Ratu, PO and PS - Ratu, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand

11. Officer In-charge, Ratu Police Station, PO and PS - Ratu, District

- Ranchi, Jharkhand

12. The State of Jharkhand .... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

          For the Petitioner   :-    Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha, Advocate
          For the State        :-    None
                                     ----

05/16.10.2024 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. On repeated

calls, nobody has responded on behalf of the respondent State.

2. The prayer in the writ petition is made for direction upon the

--1-- W.P. (Cr.) No. 197 of 2020 respondent Nos.8 and 11 for initiation of criminal proceeding under

Sections 441, 434 and 425 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent

No.1 to 7.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

respondent Nos.1 to 7 are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the

land of the petitioner and in view of that the complaint was made.

4. Seeing the nature of the prayer, it transpires that the petitioner

is having the alternative remedy and further considering the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu versus State of U.P.

and Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 and that case is again

reiterated recently by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.

Subramaniam and Another versus S. Janaki and Another

reported in (2020) 16 SCC 728.

5. In view of the above this petition is being disposed of with

liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy.

                                    (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Sangam/




                                  --2--                         W.P. (Cr.) No. 197 of 2020