Allowed

Jitendra Kumar Alias Jitendra Prasad v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC16 Sept 2016Cr.M.P./1459/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted special leave against orders issued no bailable warrant and procuration under Cr.P.C. by Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge. Court held impugned orders lack cogent reasons quashed them while allowing magistrate to proceed further under Cr.P.C. law.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 10.09.2015 02.11.2015 28.03.2016 and 01.06.2016 issued non-bailable warrants and process under Cr.P.C. are quashed and set aside.

Jitendra Kumar Alias Jitendra Prasad Vs The… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1459 of 2016

¶2

¶3

Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Prasad … … Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Superintending Engineer, Department of Road Construction, Chaibasa … ... Opposite Parties

¶6

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : None ---

¶9

04/16.09.2016 Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. No one has appears on behalf of the State.

¶10

In this application, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 10.09.2015, 02.11.2015 and 28.03.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela in connection with Adityapur P. S. Case No. 300 of 2009 whereby and whereunder non-bailable warrant of arrest, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has been ordered to be issued. A further challenge has been made to the order dated 01.06.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge – I, Saraikela in Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2016 by which the revision preferred by the petitioners against the orders for issuance of warrant of arrest, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. had been rejected.

¶11

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 17.08.2015 notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. was issued upon the petitioner and on the same date itself the Investigating Officer has prayed for issuance of warrant of arrest. Learned counsel submits that subsequent orders dated 10.09.2015, 02.11.2015 and 28.03.2016 do not reflect subjective satisfaction on the part of the learned Magistrate and without assigning any reasons the said orders have been passed. Learned counsel further submits that the revisional order dated 01.06.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2016 has substituted the findings of the learned Magistrate by his own findings by taking resort to the fact that the petitioner had filed a Criminal Writ application and was well aware of the pendency of the criminal case

¶12

-2-

¶13

and had filed a subsequent application for stay of the issuance of process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that neither the learned Magistrate nor the revisional court has properly appreciated the fact that no reasons have been assigned in the impugned orders and, therefore, the said orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.

¶14

It appears that on the date when the notice was issued upon the petitioner for his attendance under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Investigating Officer has prayed for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner. The subsequent orders which have been passed with respect to the issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. do not contain any justifiable reasons for the same. The learned revisional court has refused to entertain the revision application on the ground that there were sufficient materials available regarding issuance of process.

¶15

However, the orders passed by the learned Magistrate do not suggest so. The impugned orders, therefore, in absence of any cogent reasons are, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶16

This application is allowed.

¶17

However, the learned Magistrate is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶18

(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶19

Umesh/-

Jitendra Kumar Alias Jitendra Prasad v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Alias Jitendra Prasad 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

Mahruddin Mian And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Kishori Sah And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rajeev Ranjan Alias Happu And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Md Abbas Ansari Alias Abbas Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Phulmani Gudia Vs The State Of Jharkhand