Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1078 Jhar
Judgement Date : 22 July, 2025
2025:JHHC:20049
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 231 of 2024
----
Ramakant Dubey, son of Prabhunath Dubey, resident of village Misrauliya, P.O
Semoura, P.S. Kandi, District Garhwa, Jharkhand .... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Palamau.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Garhwa.
5. The Investigating Officer of Garhwa Town P.S. Case No. 50 of 2020.
6. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-SDO, Office at Garhwa.
7. The Executive Magistrate, Garhwa.
8. Sachin Tiwari, son of Deepak Tiwary, resident of village Patoria, P.O Simora,
P.S. Kandi, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand ... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : M/s Aditya Kuamr Jha, Anjani Kumar and Ashutosh Ranjan Kumar, Advocates.
For the State: AC to SC-V
For resp. No. 8 M/s. Shashank Shekhar No. 1 &
Shristi Sinha, Advocates.
........
06/22.07.2025: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for
following relief(s):-
(i) For direction upon the respondent authorities to bring on
the record or return the original property documents of the petitioner which was illegally and fraudulently withdrawn from the Court records of respondent No. 6 by the respondent No. 8.
(ii) For direction to conduct fair and impartial investigation by independent authority in Garhwa Town P.S. Case No. 50 of 2020 registered under Section 420 IPC, pending in the Court of learned CJM, Garhwa.
(iii) For direction upon the respondent No. 5 to take appropriate action against respondent No. 8 in connection with the aforesaid case, the investigation of which is still pending since long.
2. During course of argument, it has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cognizance has already been taken in Garhwa Town P.S. Case No. 50 of 2020.
3. Since cognizance has already been taken, prayer No. (ii) and (iii) made in this criminal writ petition, have rendered infructuous.
4. So far as prayer No. (i) is concerned, the petitioner prays that a direction may be given to the respondent authorities to return the original property documents of the petitioner, which were illegally and fraudulently withdrawn from the Court's record by respondent No. 8.
5. Whether the original documents have been withdrawn by respondent No. 8 or not, is the subject matter of the criminal trial in which, the cognizance has already been taken. Unless the said trial is decided and unless a specific finding is arrived at by the Magistrate that the original property documents of the petitioner was illegally and fraudulently withdrawn from the Court records by respondent No. 8, no order can be passed in this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the respondent No. 8 to return the said documents. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make appropriate prayer before the Trial Court concerned after the judgment is delivered.
Anu/-CP3 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!