IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Rajesh Yadav S/o Kamli Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGEMNET :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNS , 2023 with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Madhuban P.S. case no. 03 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 324 (5), 326 of the BNS , 2023, pending in the court of learned JMFC, Dhanbad on the ground that this is the second FIR in respect of same occurrence for which, earlier Madhuban P.S. case no. 01 of 2025 and Madhuban P.S. case no. 02 of 2025 have already been registered.
3. The brief that of this case is that this case, being the Madhuban P.S. case no. 03 of 2025 has been registered, basing upon the written report submitted by the Circle Inspector of Mahuda Circle office, alleging therein that on 09.01.2025 at about 10.30 AM, there was a fight between two groups, one led by Karu Yadav and the other by Sheikh Guddu, to have dominance over the Babudih colliery. There was arson, firing, assaults and counter assaults between the members of the two groups. On getting t
T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Others reported in
Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another reported in
Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Others reported in
Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in
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.