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.

Raju Kumar Vs. the State of Jharkhand

Raju Kumar vs The State of Jharkhand

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Dec 19, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/972327

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

Raju Kumar

Respondent

The State of Jharkhand

Excerpt

in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi a.b.a.no.3379 of 2012 rajukumar. ... ... ...petitioner -versus- 1. the state of jharkhand.2. rajkumar sao. ... ... ...opp. parties ---------- coram: the honble mr. justice d.n.upadhyay for the petitioner: mr. arshad hussain, advocate. for the state: a.p.p. for the o.p.no.2: mr. rajesh kumar sinha, advocate. ---------- 03/ 19.12.2012 the petitioner is an accused in a case registered under sections 406/420 of the indian penal code in connection with ichak p.s. case no. 79 of 2012, corresponding to g.r. no. 1520 of 2012, pending in the court of the chief judicial magistrate, hazaribagh. it reveals from the complaint that the petitioner realized rs. 1,67,500/- from the complainant on the assurance that vehicle is to be financed in his name. when no vehicle was financed nor the amount was refunded, this case has been lodged. it is submitted that the petitioner did not receive a single coin in his account from the complainant. this case has been lodged with false allegation due to previous grudge. learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer and submitted that he is in possession of valid receipt by which he has deposited the amount in the account of petitioner. it appears that giving false assurance, money has been realized from the complainant. considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, i do not feel inclined to consider the prayer under section 438 cr.p.c. accordingly, the same stands dismissed. [d.n.upadhyay,j.] p.k.s.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A.No.3379 of 2012 Rajukumar. ... ... ...Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Rajkumar Sao. ... ... ...Opp. Parties ---------- CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY For the Petitioner: Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate. For the State: A.P.P. For the O.P.No.2: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate. ---------- 03/ 19.12.2012 The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Ichak P.S. Case No. 79 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 1520 of 2012, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. It reveals from the Complaint that the petitioner realized Rs. 1,67,500/- from the Complainant on the assurance that vehicle is to be financed in his name. When no vehicle was financed nor the amount was refunded, this case has been lodged. It is submitted that the petitioner did not receive a single coin in his account from the Complainant. This case has been lodged with false allegation due to previous grudge. Learned Counsel for the Complainant opposed the prayer and submitted that he is in possession of valid receipt by which he has deposited the amount in the account of petitioner. It appears that giving false assurance, money has been realized from the Complainant. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, I do not feel inclined to consider the prayer under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. [D.N.Upadhyay,J.] P.K.S.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial