VIVEK AGARWALLA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the cases are arising out of same complaint case and in view of that, both the cases have been heard together with consent of the parties.

(2.) Heard Mr. Rishav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Ruby Pandey and Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Saurav Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

(3.) In Cr.M.P. No.1795 of 2012, the prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/1 Case No.1711 of 2006 including the order taking cognizance dtd. 9/11/2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur and also for quashing the order dtd. 11/4/2008, pending in the Court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. In Cr.M.P. No.1800 of 2012, the prayer is made for quashing the orders dtd. 9/6/2008, 19/8/2008, 17/1/2009, 23/3/2009, 6/7/2009, 16/11/2009, 5/1/2011 and 5/6/2012, whereby, bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest, fresh non-bailable With warrant of arrest, processes under Ss. 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., fresh non- bailable warrant of arrest and fresh processes under Ss. 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. respectively have been directed to be issued against the petitioner in connection with C/1 Case No.1711 of 2006, pending in the Court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.