Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Pramila Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2968 of 2017
1. Smt. Pramila Kumari, wife of Jai Nandan Kumar Singh,
2. Jai Nandan Kumar Singh, son of Sri Baleshwar Singh,
Both residents of Village - Bankheta, P.O. & P.S. - Ramgarh,
District - Ramgarh.
..... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Alok Kumar Gupta, son of Late Radhe Shyam Gupta, resident of
Hazaribagh Road, Kokar, P.O. - Kokar, P.S. - Lalpur, District -
Ranchi.
3. Chandra Kant Gopalka, son of Late Shyam Sundar Gopalka,
resident of GEL Church Complex, P.O. & P.S. - Lower Bazaar,
District-Ranchi.
4. Arun Agarawal, son of not known to the petitioner,
5. Dipak Agrawal, son of not known to the petitioner, both are
residents of Kalpataru Complex, Jalan Road, Upper Bazaar, P.O.
- Ranchi, P.S. - Kotwali, District - Ranchi.
6. Deoraj Mahto, son of not known to the petitioner,
7. Avinash Kumar Dubey, son of not known to the petitioner, both
residents of Tyre More, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District -
Ramgarh.
..... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate.
Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, Advocate.
For the O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 : None.
---------
th
Order No. 04/Dated: 07 January, 2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP
appearing for the State. However, in spite of valid service of notice
and after filing of Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party nos. 2
to 7, none appears on their behalf.
2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 04.08.2017 passed
under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. by learned Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Ramgarh in Case No. 92 of 2017 and present Cr.M.P.
was filed on 30.10.2017.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the
impugned judgment, there is some observation regarding right,
title and interest of opposite party nos. 2 to 7 and the learned Sub-
Divisional Magistrate is not entitled to touch the question of title
in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. and the
observation recorded by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Ramgarh is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned APP opposed the contentions raised on
behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the impugned order
itself has lost its effect by efflux of time as contained under Section
144 (4) of the Cr.P.C. and is not binding upon either of the parties
for any purpose whatsoever. Therefore, impugned order has
become infructuous having no binding force upon either party.
Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have given anxious consideration to the points raised on behalf
of both parties.
6. It appears that a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was
initiated between the parties in respect of some landed property,
but dispute is based upon sole transaction. The learned Sub
Divisional Magistrate, after enquiry, observed that on earlier
occasion also regarding the same land, a proceeding under Section
144 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated, wherein no effective order was
passed, rather parties were directed to take shelter of competent
civil court to decide their right, title and interest. Petitioners are
purchaser from one of the parties in above earlier proceeding.
7. It appears that there is general observation about the previous facts
and nothing has been opined regarding right, title and interest of
either party, calling for any interference in the impugned order.
8. In the above circumstances, in my considered view the impugned
order has lost its rider as per the statutory provision contained
under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. and not binding upon either party.
9. Considering the same, there is no merit in this criminal
miscellaneous petition, which requires any interference. Hence,
the present Cr.M.P. is dismissed.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sunil/-
