IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Jitendra Kumar Singh prop. J.K. Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts leading to the criminal proceedings. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. contentions regarding offenses and legal citations. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis on definitions and requirements of offenses. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. final decision to quash the proceedings. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C.P. Case No.9450 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code including the order taking cognizance dated 19.06.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner in need of money approached the informant to help him of Rs.40 lakhs, the complainant paid him in total 40 lakhs by paying Rs.20 lakhs on 26.06.2020 by transferring the sam
Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in
Satish Chandra Ratan Lal Shah vs. State of Gujarat & 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.