Manoj Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 13 September, 2017

[Cites 1, Cited by 4]

Jharkhand High Court

Manoj Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 13 September, 2017

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                Cr. M. P. No. 2495 of 2017
                                   ---

           Manoj Kumar Gupta son of Vijay Prasad Gupta
           resident of Ravindra Path, PO Hazaribag, PS Sadar,
           District Hazaribagh                       ...     ...         Petitioner
                                Versus
           1.The State of Jharkhand
           2.Md. Khairul                                ...     ...      Opposite Parties
                                      ---
           CORAM        : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                                   ---
           For the Petitioner           : M/s. Pradeep Kumar Deomani &
                                               Nilesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
           For the Opposite Party No. 1 : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P.

                                      ---

3/13.09.2017

Heard Mr. P. K. Deomani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State.

In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 23.03.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 1367 of 2013 by which the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected. A further challenge has been made to the order dated 02.08.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Revision No. 72 of 2017 affirming the order dated 23.03.2017.

It appears that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence as on 15.05.2015 an application for time was filed by the complainant which was allowed and the case was fixed on 16.06.2015. It appears that on 18.02.2017 again time petition was filed by the petitioner and the case was fixed for 23.03.2017 on which date no Pairvi was made by the petitioner which resultantly led to closure of evidence. Subsequently the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned revisional court. It appears that sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner to adduce evidence, but in spite of repeated opportunities, the petitioner failed to avail of the same and in stead filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. which on proper appreciation of the conduct of the petitioner and the materials available on record led to passing of the order dated 23.03.2017.

-2-

There being no reason to conclude otherwise with respect to the order dated 23.03.2017 passed by the learned trial court and order dated 02.08.2017 passed by the learned revisional court, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which is accordingly, dismissed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) R. Shekhar Cp 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court