Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Nand Kishore Prasad Swarnkar And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 3 January, 2018

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr. M.P. No. 540 of 2017
                                           ---
          1.     Nand Kishore Prasad Swarnkar, S/o late Baldeo Swarnkar.
          2.     Niranjan Soni, Son of Shri Nand Kishore Prasad Swarnkar.
          3.     Shrikant Soni @ Shrikant Swarnkar, S/o Shri Nand Kishore
                 Prasad Swarnkar.
          4.     Chandan Soni, Son of Shri Nand Kishore Swarnkar.
                 All residents of Isri Bazar, P.O. Ishri, P.S. Nemiyaghat, District-
                 Giridih.
                                                      ....Petitioners
                                 Versus
          1.     The State of Jharkhand.
          2.     Shri Dipak Kumar Jain.
          3.     Praveen Kumar Jain. Both sons of Puran Chand Jain.
          4.     Pawan Kumar, Son of Ram Kishun Ram.
                 All are residents of Isri Bazar, P.O. Ishri, P.S. Nemiyaghat,
                 District-Giridih                     ...      Opposite Parties
                                                ---
          CORAM        : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                                                ---
          For the Petitioners       : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
          For the State             : A.P.P.
                                  ---
06/03.01.2018

Heard the parties.

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that although by an efflux of time, a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. has already lapsed but it has been pointed that the proceeding which was initiated was made absolute on the same day. Learned counsel submits that there is an apparent error in the impugned order dated 22.2.2017.

Although what has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners has prompted this Court to visit the impugned order dated 22.2.2017 but since the proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. has already lapsed on account of efflux of time, this Court is, therefore, not inclined to make any conclusive reference to the impugned order.

This application stands dismissed as being infructuous.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Rakesh/-