Ganga Prasad Halwai v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors
Cr.M.P./2743/2017 · 2025-01-08
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 17715 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 17715 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2743 of 2017
Ganga Prasad Halwai Son of Late Ramnath Sao Halwai, resident of Tola Jatrahi Bagi, Chatra, P.O. Chatra, P.S. Sadar, District Chatra.
… Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bhola Sao, Son of Late Fagu Sao
3. Kanhai Sao, Son of Late Fagu Sao
4. Anath Sao, Son of Late Fagu Sao Sr. No.2 to 4 are resident of Village Jatrahi Bagi, P.O. Chatra, P.S. Sadar, District Chatra
… Opp. Parties
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Adv. For the State
: Mr. P.D. Aggarwal, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. Nos.2 to 4 : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Adv.
Order No.06/Dated- 08.01.2025
The present miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chatra in Criminal Revision No.19 of 2017, whereby and whereunder an order passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chatra in Case No. 35 of 2016 in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. has been set aside.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order is illegal and based on non-consideration of the materials, therefore, is fit to be set aside.
3.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned S.D.M. which has been interfered by the Revisional Court has no legal effect as per statutory provision of Section 144(4) Cr.P.C. and therefore, this miscellaneous petition has become infructuous and any order passed in the proceeding is not binding to any of the parties. Therefore, this miscellaneous petition is fit to be dismissed.
4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., I find that the restrictive order passed by learned S.D.M. and even set aside by
the learned Revisional Court has no binding effect upon either party in view of provision of Section 144(4) Cr.P.C., therefore, this revision application has become infructuous and accordingly dismissed.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Sachin