RAM KISHORE PRASAD vs STATE OF JHARKHAND . — Crl.A. No. 1250/2013

Case under Section II-A. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010278222008

Filing Date

23-Sep-2008

Registration No

Crl.A. No. 1250/2013

Diary Number

27822/2008

Order Date

23-Aug-2013

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Allowed

Last updated 06-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section II-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAM KISHORE PRASAD

    Adv. DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINHA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF JHARKHAND .

    Adv. LAWYER S KNIT & CO ANIL K. JHA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Aug-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 11-Mar-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 04-Mar-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 18-Feb-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 28-Jan-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 03-Dec-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 02-Aug-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 25-Feb-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 21-Jan-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 26-Oct-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 21-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 14-Jul-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 01-May-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 31-Mar-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 25-Feb-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 07-Nov-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 23-Sep-2008

    Case filed

    Registration No. Crl.A. No. 1250/2013

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Ram Kishore Prasad v. State of Jharkhand Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order quashing the criminal prosecution, and remanded the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro Steel City for fresh consideration of the prosecution report regarding non-compliance with a Labour Court Award. Background & Key Issue: The case involved a 1994 Labour Court Award in appellant's favour that allegedly remained unexecuted. A prosecution was filed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for non-compliance. The High Court had quashed the prosecution, reasoning the Magistrate took cognizance mechanically under the wrong section. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding the High Court should have remanded rather than quashed entirely. Next Steps: The Chief Judicial Magistrate must apply fresh mind to all materials and prosecution report, hear all parties, and decide whether prosecution should proceed against the respondent-management. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case