Harendra Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 9999 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Harendra Singh 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. 798 of 2024
      Harendra Singh, aged about 56 years, son of Surendra
      Singh, resident of House No. 155, Abhimanyu Nagar,
      Chas block, Ward Number 9, P.O.+P.S.-Chas, District-
      Bokaro-827013 (Jharkhand).
                                                       .....  ... Petitioner
                                    Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand.
      2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand, having its
      office at Police Headquarters, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. -
      Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
      3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Chas Circle, P.O &
      P.s. Chas, District: Bokaro.
      4. Officer-in-Charge, Chas Police Station, Chas- Circle,
      P.O & P.s. Chas District: Bokaro.
      5. Brajeshwar Kumar Singh, aged about 37 years, son of
      Balram Singh, R/o Gujrat Colony, Chas, P.O & P.S.
      Chas, District- Bokaro.
                                                       ..... ...       Respondents
                                 --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Ranjan Vats, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Binit Chandra, A.C. to A.A.G.-III.

------

03/ 16.10.2024 Prayer in this writ petition is made for a direction upon the respondent-State to implement the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-cum-Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Bokaro, in C.P. Case No. 708 of 2017.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complaint case No. 708 of 2017 was filed under Section 138 of the NI Act and by the judgment dated 25.02.2022, the learned trial court has been pleased to impose the compensation against the accused. He submits that an appeal was preferred by the accused, however the same was dismissed and till date the accused has not surrendered.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner is required to pursue the matter before the learned court, who has passed the said order.

4. In the present writ petition, no document is annexed to

show that the petitioner has ever moved before the learned court with regard to prayer of the petitioner, as such, the petitioner is required to pursue the same by way of filing the appropriate petition before the learned court, who has passed the said order.

5. As such, this petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to move before the learned court for such prayer, who will look into and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-