Allowed

Santosh Saw and Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC11 Sept 2014Cr.M.P./3370/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside non-bailable warrants and Section 82 CrPC processes issued by the Magistrate without awaiting execution reports of prior bailable and non-bailable warrants, holding such orders non-speaking and unsustainable as they lacked judicial mind.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 12.9.2013 and 7.4.2014 set aside and interlocutory application allowed.

Santosh Saw and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2014)

¶1

-------CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA -----For the Petitioners : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Md. Hatim, A.P.P. --------

¶2

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA

¶3

5/ 11.09.2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the

¶4

State.

¶5

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners as also the order taking cognizance dated 1.2.2013, passed in B.O. Case No. 22 of 2012, for the offence under Sections, 33, 41, 42 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act.

¶6

The petitioners have also filed I.A. No. 4237 of 2014 challenging the orders dated 12.9.2013 and 7.4.2014, whereby non-bailable warrants and process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., have been issued against the petitioners.

¶7

After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has not pressed the prayer of challenging the impugned order taking cognizance and criminal proceeding against the petitioners, in view of the allegations against them. Accordingly, this prayer of the petitioners is rejected as not pressed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his challenge only to the orders dated 12.9.2013 and 7.4.2014 passed by the Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out from the order-sheet that the order dated 12.9.2013 has been passed by the Court below without awaiting the execution reports of the bailable warrants issued against them and even thereafter without awaiting the execution reports of the non-bailable warrants, by order dated 7.4.2014, process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., has been issued against

¶9

-2-

¶10

the petitioners. Learned counsel has submitted that these orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law as these processes have been issued without any application of judicial mind by the Court below.

¶11

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the

¶12

prayer.

¶13

From the order sheet, which has been brought on record, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. By order dated 20.6.2013, bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against the petitioners and subsequently, on the very next date, i.e., on 12.9.2013, non-bailable warrants of arrest have been issued against the petitioners without awaiting the execution reports of the bailable warrants. The order is absolutely non-speaking order without disclosing any satisfaction of the Magistrate as to why the non-bailable warrants were required to be issued against the petitioners. Even the order dated 7.4.2014 clearly shows that without awaiting the execution reports of non-bailable warrants, process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., has been issued against the petitioners. In my considered view, both these orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶14

Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 12.9.2013 and 7.4.2014 passed by Sri K.K. Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Bermo at Tenughat, in B.O. Case No. 22 of 2012, are hereby, set aside.

¶15

This criminal miscellaneous petition is, accordingly, disposed of and the aforesaid interlocutory application, is hereby, allowed.

¶16

Let this order be communicated to the Court concerned through FAX at the cost of the petitioners.

¶17

( H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶18

R.Kr.

Santosh Saw and Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Saw and Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Singh Alias Vikash Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Deglal Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Kusum Toppo and Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dhanajay Banerjee And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Vikash Kumar Singh Alias Bikash Alias Bikku Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Farooque Mirza Alias Farooque and Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.