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.

Basanti Devi and anr Vs. the State of Jharkhand

Basanti Devi and anr vs The State of Jharkhand

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Apr 15, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/972179

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

Basanti Devi and anr

Respondent

The State of Jharkhand

Excerpt

in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi a.b.a. no. 48 of 2013 with a.b.a. no. 54 of 2013. ----- 1. basanti devi 2. santosh kumar @ anand petitioners in aba 48/13.3. ram badan ram 4. indrajeet kumar @ guddu petitioners in aba 54/13. versus 1.the state of jharkhand 2. ganesh das opposite parties. . ..... coram : the hon'ble mr. justice prashant kumar. ----- for the petitioners : sri. indrajit sinha for the opposite parties : sri. v.k. tiwari, a.p.p. sri sanjeev thakur ----- 03/15.04.2013. both the applications arose from same first information report, thus are heard together and disposed of by this order. sri indrajit sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both cases, sri v.k. tiwari, addl. p.p. for the state and sri sanjeev thakur, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2. it is alleged that the petitioners took rs.3,60,000/- at the time of engagement of the marriage and thereafter, they demanded more money from the complainant. when complainant refused to give aforesaid amount, they refused to marry with the complainant's daughter. however, a counter affidavit filed on behalf of state, wherein at paragraph no.9, it is stated that the complainant's daughter refused to leave her job and she wants to reside with her parents even after the marriage, because of that petitioners refused to solemnised marriage. it is submitted on behalf of opposite party no. 2 that police enquired the matter and submitted final form. under the said circumstances counter affidavit can not be looked into. however, when the counsel for the complainant was asked to produce any paper showing that petitioners took rs.3,60,000/- from him he was not able to produce it. considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, i allow this application and direct the petitioners, named above, to surrender in the court below by 26.04.2013 . if petitioners surrender by that time, the court below is directed to enlarge the petitioners, named above, on

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 48 of 2013 with A.B.A. No. 54 of 2013. ----- 1. Basanti Devi 2. Santosh Kumar @ Anand Petitioners in ABA 48/13.

3. Ram Badan Ram 4. Indrajeet Kumar @ Guddu Petitioners in ABA 54/13. Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Ganesh Das Opposite Parties. . ..... Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar. ----- For the Petitioners : Sri. Indrajit Sinha For the Opposite Parties : Sri. V.K. Tiwari, A.P.P. Sri Sanjeev Thakur ----- 03/15.04.2013. Both the applications arose from same First Information Report, thus are heard together and disposed of by this order. Sri Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both cases, Sri V.K. Tiwari, Addl. P.P. for the State and Sri Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2. It is alleged that the petitioners took Rs.3,60,000/- at the time of engagement of the marriage and thereafter, they demanded more money from the complainant. When complainant refused to give aforesaid amount, they refused to marry with the complainant's daughter. However, a counter affidavit filed on behalf of State, wherein at paragraph no.9, it is stated that the complainant's daughter refused to leave her job and she wants to reside with her parents even after the marriage, because of that petitioners refused to solemnised marriage. It is submitted on behalf of opposite party no. 2 that police enquired the matter and submitted final form. Under the said circumstances counter affidavit can not be looked into. However, when the counsel for the complainant was asked to produce any paper showing that petitioners took Rs.3,60,000/- from him he was not able to produce it. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I allow this application and direct the petitioners, named above, to surrender in the court below by 26.04.2013 . If petitioners surrender by that time, the court below is directed to enlarge the petitioners, named above, on

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial