IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN
Sandeep Rana S/o D.S Rana – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANANDA SEN, J.
In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for:
“issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Ranchi Sadar Kotwali P.S. Case No. 264/2024 registered u/s 318(4)/ 316(2)/61(2) of the B.N.S. The case is pending in the court of CJM at Ranchi for submission of final form.”
2. The First Information Report (FIR) being Ranchi Sadar Kotwali PS Case No. 264 of 2024 has been registered on 02.10.2024 for offences under sections 318(4), 316(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the petitioners on the basis of written statement of the informant-respondent no. 5.
3. As per the First Information Report, in August 2019, ABFRL approached the informant for setting up a showroom in Ramgarh. Prior to entering into any agreement, the company shared a ROI Sheet (Return on Investment) and Term Sheet, projecting attractive returns and assuring that (i) rent of the showroom would be paid by the company, and (ii) employee salaries (except the store manager) would be borne by the informant and reimbursed at a specified rate. Mr. Prasoon Mukherjee confirmed via WhatsApp on 31.8.2019 that the total mon
Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja & Another
Vinod Natesan vs. State of Kerala
Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. & Another vs. State of Kerala & Others
Binod Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another
Anand Kumar Mahatta vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.