Remanded

Ashok Yadav And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Sept 2017Cr.M.P./2822/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing an order dated 17.10.2016 where cognizance was taken under Section 307 IPC. The court held the order lacked reasons regarding materials considered for Section 307 and remitted the matter back to the lower court for a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 17.10.2016 set aside; matter remitted to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj to pass a fresh order within two weeks.

Ashok Yadav And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 2822 of 2016

¶3

¶4

Ashok Yadav, son of Ramji Yadav

¶5

Bijay Yadav, son of Ramji Yadav

¶6

Ramraj Yadav, son of Ram Awatar Yadav

¶7

Satyadeo Yadav, son of Ram Awatar Yadav

¶8

Dinesh Yadav, son of Ram Awatar Yadav

¶9

Shankar Kumar @ Shankar Yadav, son of Dinesh Yadav

¶10

Munna Yadav, son of Dinesh Yadav

¶11

Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Yadav, son of Dinesh Yadav, all residents of village – Turi, Tola – Langurahi, P.O. - Kurhat, Kataiya, P.S. Hariharganj, Disrict – Palamau (Jharkhand)

¶12

… … Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

¶15

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶16

For the Petitioners : Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, A.P.P.

¶17

02/06.09.2017 Heard Mr. A. K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Nagmani Tiwari, learned A.P.P.

¶18

In this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 17.10.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 65 of 2015 whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

It has been stated by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that initially the First Information Report was not registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but subsequently it was added and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted only under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code but disagreeing with the charge-sheet so submitted cognizance had also been taken under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code without mentioning the cause for taking of cognizance under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It has thus been submitted that the impugned order in absence of any reasons deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶20

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners.

¶21

-2-

¶22

It appears that initially Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 65 of 2015 was instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently on an application preferred by the informant which was allowed by the learned court below on 17.12.2015 and which led to adding of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge-sheet was not submitted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code but disagreeing with the same the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

In the impugned order dated 17.10.2016 mere mention has been made about certain paragraphs of the case diary without reflecting as to what are the materials which weighed on the mind of the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus there does not appear to be any reasons which have been assigned by the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code also.

¶24

In such circumstance, therefore, while setting aside the order dated 17.10.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 65 of 2015 the matter is remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

¶25

This application stands disposed of.

¶26

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶27

Umesh/-

Ashok Yadav And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Yadav And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand

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

Kanhai Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Uday Ram Alias Uday Kumar Ram Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Chhotelal Singh And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rajesh Paswan Alias Rajesh Kumar Paswan Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Manoranjan Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Manjur Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.