Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ajay Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr

Ajay Kumar vs State of Jharkhand and anr

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Sep 23, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1086430

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jharkhand High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ajay Kumar

Respondent

State of Jharkhand and anr

Excerpt

in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi cr.m.p. no.1632 of 2013 ajay kumar ...................................................petitioner versus state of jharkhand and another ....…. opposite parties coram: hon’ble mr.justice r.r.prasad for the petitioner: mr. anil kumar for the state : a.p.p for the o.p.no.2: mr.s.k.pandey 2/ 23.9.13. heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also learned counsel appearing for the state as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2. the entire criminal proceeding or complaint case no.1435 of 2010 including the order dated 7.9.2011 passed by the then sub-divisional judicial magistrate, ranchi is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the parties got their monetary dispute settled. it is the case of the petitioner, who happens tobe the complainant of the case that he had given a sum of rs.40,000/- to the opposite party no.2 to deposit in its account but the opposite party no.2 did not deposit the same rather misappropriated it. on such allegation, a compliant was lodged as complaint case no.1435 of 2010 in which cognizance of the offence was taken, vide order dated 7.9.2011. however, thereafter the parties got their monetary dispute settled and therefore, an application was filed for withdrawal of the case which was not allowed by the court and that necessitated filing of this case. learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 admits that the matter has been compromised. the dispute which gave rise to this case seems to be personal in nature never involves any public policy and therefore, it never appears to be in the interest of justice to allow the opposite party no.2 to be prosecuted when the parties got their monetary dispute settled. accordingly, entire criminal proceeding of complaint case no.1435 of 2010 including the order dated 7.9.2011 taking cognizance is hereby set aside. in the result, this application stands allowed. ( r. r. prasad, j.) nd/

Full Judgment

In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P. No.1632 of 2013 Ajay Kumar ...................................................Petitioner VERSUS State of Jharkhand and another ....…. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD For the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar For the State : A.P.P For the O.P.No.2: Mr.S.K.Pandey 2/ 23.9.13. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2. The entire criminal proceeding or Complaint Case No.1435 of 2010 including the order dated 7.9.2011 passed by the then Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the parties got their monetary dispute settled. It is the case of the petitioner, who happens tobe the complainant of the case that he had given a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the opposite party no.2 to deposit in its account but the opposite party no.2 did not deposit the same rather misappropriated it. On such allegation, a compliant was lodged as Complaint Case No.1435 of 2010 in which cognizance of the offence was taken, vide order dated 7.9.2011. However, thereafter the parties got their monetary dispute settled and therefore, an application was filed for withdrawal of the case which was not allowed by the court and that necessitated filing of this case. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 admits that the matter has been compromised. The dispute which gave rise to this case seems to be personal in nature never involves any public policy and therefore, it never appears to be in the interest of justice to allow the opposite party no.2 to be prosecuted when the parties got their monetary dispute settled. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case no.1435 of 2010 including the order dated 7.9.2011 taking cognizance is hereby set aside. In the result, this application stands allowed. ( R. R. Prasad, J.) ND/

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial