Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7563 (JHR)

DEV MOHAN MISHRA v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.M.P./679/2024 · 2025-01-13

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. 679 of 2024 1. Dev Mohan Mishra, aged about 43 years, Son of Late Krishna Mohan Mishra, resident of Mahabir Nagar, P.O.- Doranda, P.S.- Argora, District- Ranchi. 2. Anuradha Mishra, aged about 37 years, Wife of Dev Mohan Mishra, resident of Mahabir Nagar, P.O.- Doranda, P.S.- Argora, District- Ranchi ….. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Abhay Kkumar Jha, Son of Late Satyendra Kumar Jha, At-L-52, Argora housing colony, P.O.- Doranda, P.S.- Argora, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Office-in-Charge, Argora Police Station, P.O.- Doranda, P.S.- Argora, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. ….. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bhrati, A.P.P. --------- Order No. 05/Dated: 13th January, 2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.08.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, - XIII, Ranchi in G.R. Case No. 3243 of 2021, whereby and whereunder discharge application of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. It is further submitted that now charge has been framed which has not been brought on record to filing any amendment application. The petitioner has also not been filed any revision against rejection of the discharge application. 3. Learned APP is also present and has submitted that it is an abuse process of court by the petitioner as the present application has been filed after expiry of the limitation period of filing revision application against the impugned order. Page | 2 Charge has also been framed, hence, this petition has become infructuous and could not be admitted for hearing. 4. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, this petition does not appear to be fit for admission. 5. Hence, this petition is dismissed. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Simran/