Jharkhand Court June 2011 Judgments

Bijay Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.

Court: Jharkhand

1. Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order impugned dated 3.12.2009, passed by the CJM, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.2042 of 2009, by which cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 354, Indian Penal Code and directed summons to be issued to the petitioner to answer the charges, which is presently pending in the Court of Shri Taufique Hussain, Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Ranchi. 2. Prosecution story in short was that a complaint was filed by the complainant-opposite party No.2 herein before the CJM, Ranchi against the petitioner on 17.8.2009 stating, inter alia, that she was a widow and was living at Chutia Mohalla, Ranchi with her mother and sister. The accused-petitioner was an eminent Doctor having his Eye Clinic-cum- Nursing Home. Previously the complainant-opposite party No.2 was working in the clinic of Dr. (Mrs.) Rita Verma, but later on she joined the nursing home of the ...

Maheshwari Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.

Court: Jharkhand

1. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for the quashment of the First Information Report alleged against him as also the charge-sheet in the said case submitted on 31.10.2000, arising out of Lalpur P.S. Case No.122 of 2000 on 31.03.2000, ciorresponding to Special Case No.10 of 2000 for the alleged offence under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The petitioner had earlier moved for the quashment of the F.I.R. of Lalpur P.S. Case No.122 of 2000 in Cr.M.P.No.1041 of 2009, which was disposed of on 28.01.2010 with the observation, "I am surprised to see the allegation made in the complaint that on 30.10.2000 the informant Pradeep Ram was driving his truck and at one place some uniformed persons signaled the truck to stop. The said persons demanded the papers concerning the truck and after its perusal demanded Rs.10,000/-. On refusal one of them asked the informant to come to Apsara Hotel to take back his paper. The informant all...

Manoj Kumar Jha and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand

Court: Jharkhand

1. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of their entire criminal proceedings and the order by which warrant of arrest and subsequently processes under Sections 82/83, Code of Criminal Procedure were issued on 22.1.2011, 7.2.2011 and 22.3.2011 respectively in G.R. No.407 of 2010, arising out of Pathargama P.S. Case No.51 of 2010 for the alleged offence under Sections 302/201/34, Indian Penal Code. 2. Main contentions of the petitioners are that arrest warrant were issued against them without service of summons and subsequently without awaiting for the execution report of their arrest warrant, processes were issued by proclaiming them offender and thereafter about a month, attachment order was issued by the CJM, Godda under Section 83, Code of Criminal Procedure without there being any execution report of the process under Section 82, Code of Criminal Procedure on the record and according to the l...

Prabhat Kumar Nayak Vs. State of Jharkhand

Court: Jharkhand

1. This criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 16.5.2009, passed by the SDJM, Porahat at Chaibasa in Sonua P.S. Case No.13/94, corresponding to G.R. No.149/94, by which cognizance was taken for the alleged offence under Sections 379, 411, 465, 467, 468 and 120B, Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others. Now the case is pending before Sri A. Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Porahat at Chaibasa. 2. Prosecution story in short was that the officer-in-charge of Sonua police station recorded self-statement on 14.5.1994 near Sonua Primary Health Centre that on secret information regarding a truck loaded with Kendu leaves was standing near Sonua Durga Sthan, Forest Department’s Check Post and the forest staff posted at the Check Post were about to pass the truck through the Check Post, the informant went there and found the truck No. BRS 3552. He then asked the truck to stop, pursuant to which driver of the truck Shiv Prakash Mistry and the Fores...

Md. Sham SuddIn Ahmad Vs. the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro ...

Court: Jharkhand

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant claims that his date of birth is 02.01.1951 and at the time of entry in service, he disclosed his date of birth as 02.01.1946 but that was wrong as he subsequently produced the certificate of his date of birth which is recorded in the Matriculation certificate. 3. The appellant's contention is that at the time of joining of his service, he worked with the Llyod Insulation from 02.02.1962 to 29.02.1964 and with M/s. Bharat Communication from 08.07.1964 to 31.03.1968 and thereafter with other organisations. 4. According to him, his experience certificate was found to be fake and, therefore, he cannot rely upon those certificates of experience and, therefore, the respondent should have corrected the date of birth of the appellant on the basis of the Matriculation certificate. 5. The petitioner, who himself discloses his date of birth at the time of getting the employment, submitted the experience certificate on the basis of ...

Sanjay Lohar and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand

Court: Jharkhand

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners are accused in a case registered under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The informant who is said to be the driver of the truck bearing registration No.GJ-VV-4920, was going to Siliguri but due to road jam he stopped the truck near village Lali Soren. In the evening when movement started some miscreants boarded on the truck and looted driver and cleaner and also snatched away their mobile set. 4. During investigation one of the accused Narayan was apprehended and on the basis of his confession looted mobile set from possession of co-accused Vikram was recovered. It is submitted that the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R., nothing incriminating has been recovered from their possession and they have been made accused on the basis of the confession made by the co-accused. 5. The witnesses who have named these petitioners have been examined after a lapse of about two months and therefore, such evidence is doubtful. L...

Rustam Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand

Court: Jharkhand

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is accused in a case registered under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. According to the fardbeyan dacoity was committed in the premises of mission and the miscreants looted articles belonging to informant and witnesses. 3. During investigation name of present petitioner was disclosed by co-accused and then he has been arrayed as accused in this case. 4. It is submitted that besides extra judicial confession made by co-accused, there is nothing against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged occurrence. 5. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute above facts. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail by the Court below on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega in connection with Kolebira P.S. Case No.26 of 2009 corresponding to G.R...

Krishna Kumar Burnwal Vs. State of Jharkhand

Court: Jharkhand

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S Case No.365 of 2010 corresponding to G.R Case No.3313 of 2010  for the alleged offences under Sections 413, 414, 420, 120B of the I.P.C. 3. One truck loaded with coal was apprehended by the police in which, the driver and the owner of the said truck were arrested and they disclosed that the said coal was loaded with the help of this petitioner. 4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner Krishna Kumar Burnwal @ Munna @ Ram Krishna Prasad Sao @ Munna Singh. 5. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of  his surrender/arrest , the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dhanbad or his suc...

Court: Jharkhand

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the prosecution. Petitioner, Man Mohan Lal Sharma is apprehending his arrest for the offences under Sections 403/406/409/120B/467/468/471/109 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7/13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(D)(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in connection with Vigilance (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 68 of 2010 corresponding to Special Case No. 85 of 2010. 2. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Deputy Development Commissioner at Bokaro (since retired) and the case relates to the embezzlement of huge amount of government money in construction of school&nb...

Sk. khairati Vs. State of Jharkhand

Court: Jharkhand

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the prosecution. 2. Petitioner, Sk. Khairati is apprehending his arrest for the offences under Sections 467/468/471/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Potka P.S. Case No. 11 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 283 of 2011. 3. There is allegation that two persons came to the informant's shop and they purchased iron rods worth Rs. 2,72,000/­ (Rupees two lacs seventy two thousand) and the payments were made through cheque and the said iron rods were carried on the vehicle of the informant himself. After some distance the said iron rods were loaded ...