Soni Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 10011 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Soni Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2024

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

           IN     THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               W.P.(Cr.) No. 303 of 2012
           Soni Devi, Wife of Sri Satya Nand Jha "Batul", Resident
           of Village- Karijori, P.O.-J. Kharbori, P.S.-Fatehpur,
           District-Jamtara.
                                                            .....  ... Petitioner
                                        Versus
           1. The State of Jharkhand.
           2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand,
           Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi.
           3. The Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand,
           Project Building. P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi.
           4. The Health Secretary, Government of Jharkhand,
           Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist-Ranchi.
           5. Satya Nand Jha "Batul", Son of Sri Narayan Jha,
           Resident of Village-Gumro, P.O.-Gumro, P.S.-Masaliya,
           Dist-Dumka.
           6. Bhupen Choudhary, Son of Late Ram Prasad
           Choudhary. Resident of Village-Karjuri, P.O.-J.
           Kharbori, P.S.-Fatehpur, District-Jamtara.
                                                            ..... ...      Respondents
                                     --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate.

                                     :        Mr. S.K. Deo, Advocate.
           For the State             :        Mr. Shubham Gautam, A.C. to A.A.G.-V.
           For the Resp. No. 4       :        Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate.
           For the Resp. No. 6       :        Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate.
                                     ------
15/ 16.10.2024          With regard to prayer made in the writ petition for

declaration of the paternity, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is required to move before the competent court under the Specific Relief Act.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narayan Dutt Tiwari Versus Rohit Shekhar, reported in (2012) 12 SCC 554.

3. In view of the above, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with the liberty to move before the competent court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the other respondents have got no objection.

5. Permission is accorded.

6. As such, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-