Jharkhand High Court
Cont.(Cvl)/1072/2023 of KULDIP YADAV Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 30 September 2026
Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1072 of 2023 --------- 1. Kuldip Yadav aged about 33 year son of Sri Indo Yadav resident of village & P.O.-Parsouni, P.S.-Itkhori, District- Chatra, Jharkhand. 2. Pramod Kumar aged about 45 year son of
Page | 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 1072 of 2023
---------
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Kuldip Yadav aged about 33 year son of Sri Indo Yadav resident of village & P.O.-Parsouni, P.S.-Itkhori, District- Chatra, Jharkhand.
2. Pramod Kumar aged about 45 year son of Durgeshwari Prasad, resident of village Barari Kendua P.O. & P.S.- Chouparan, District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand.
3. Suresh Kumar Gupta aged about 44 year son of Sri Mitan Saw resident of village-Debo, P.O.-Rampur, P.S.- Chouparan, District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand.
4. Ram Bharos Yadav aged about 49 year son of late Ram Sawrup Yadav, resident of village-Brahmouriya P.O.- Basariya, P.S.-Chaouparan, District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand.
-Petitioners.
-: Versus:-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Smt. Naincy Sahay, w/o not known to the petitioners, The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. & District-Hazaribagh.
3. Smt. Abbu Imran, s/o not known to the petitioners, The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O., P.S. & District- Chatra.
4. Sri Chandan Kumar, s/o not known to the petitioners, The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, New Samaharnalay Bhawan at Chhatarmandu. P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.
5. Smt. Megha Bhardwaj, w/o not known to the petitioners, The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, Samaharnalay Bhawan, Koderma, P.O., P.S. & District- Koderma.
6. Sri Naman Priyesh Lakra, s/o not known to the petitioners, The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O., P.S. & District-Giridih.
Page | 2
7. Sri Kupdeep Choudhary, s/o not known to the petitioners, The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.-Chas, District-Bokaro.
8. Sri Varun Ranjan, s/o not known to the petitioners, The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District- Dhanbad.
9. Sri Anjaneyulu Dodde, s/o not known to the petitioners, The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O., P.S. & District- Dumka.
10. Sri Vishal Sagar, s/o not known to the petitioners, The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & District- Deoghar.
11. Sri Faiz Aq Ahmed Mumtaz, s/o not known to the petitioners, The Deputy Commissioner, P.O., P.S. & District- Jamtara.
12. Sri Zeeshan Qamer s/o not known to the petitioners, The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District- Godda
13. Sri Ramniwas Yadav, s/o not known to the petitioners, The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O., P.S. & District-Sahibganj.
... ... Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC (L&C) II ---------- 05/Dated: 30th September, 2026
1. Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not intend to press this contempt case since the relief sought in this case has become infructuous. He, therefore, has prayed that the defect may be ignored.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Perused the nature of defect.
Page | 3
4. Considering the same, the defect is hereby ignored.
5. As per the submission made on behalf of petitioner that since the relief sought for in this contempt case has become infructuous, as the grievance made in the writ petition has been redressed since the counseling as per the direction made by the writ court has been conducted, as such he does not want to press this contempt case, the contempt case deserves to be disposed of.
6. Accordingly, the instant contempt case is disposed of being infructuous and as such closed.
7. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) 30th September, 2026 Alankar/-