Allowed

Mr Vijay Khurana v. State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary

Jharkhand HC2 Aug 2018Cr.M.P./2111/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed an application to quash an order dated 04.04.2018. The judgment held that the order failing to reflect receipt of a service report or application of judicial mind was illegal and set it aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 04.04.2018 was quashed and set aside. The Magistrate is at liberty to proceed further.

Mr Vijay Khurana Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M. P. No. 2111 of 2018

¶3

¶4

1.Mr. Vijay Khurana 2.M/s. ABW Infrastructure Ltd. 3.Mr. Atul Bansal 4.Mrs. Sona Bansal 5.Mr. Ravi Shankar … … Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Ministry of Home, Police House, Dhurwa, Ranchi … … 2.Ashok Kumar Tiwary Opposite Parties ---

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---

¶8

For the Petitioners : Mr. Shashanto Deo Sudh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. H. P. Singh, A.P.P.

¶9

¶10

5/02.08.2018 I. A. No. 6868 of 2018:

¶11

Heard Mr. S. D. Sudh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H. P. Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶12

This application has been preferred by the petitioner for amending the main prayer in view of the fact that due to inadvertence, the order dated 04.04.2018 by which Non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner has been left out.

¶13

In the interest of justice and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceeding, this application is allowed and I. A. No. 6868 of 2018 be treated as part of the main application.

¶14

Cr. M. P. No. 2111 of 2018:

¶15

This application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the learned J.M., East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 1 of 2016 by which bailable warrant of arrest has been directed to be issued. By virtue of I.A. No. 6868 of 2018 having been allowed by this Court, the petitioner has also challenged the order dated 04.04.2018 by which Non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel at the outset submits that he is confining his argument with respect to order dated 04.04.2018.

¶17

-2-

¶18

The impugned order dated 04.04.2018 does not reflect as to whether any service report was received pursuant to the bailable warrant and the same has been issued in a routine manner without indicating any application of judicial mind on the part of the learned Judicial Magistrate.

¶19

In view of the above, the order dated 04.04.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, East Singhbum, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 1 of 2016 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶20

This application is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinabove. However, the learned Magistrate is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶21

Let this order be sent through FAX at the cost of the petitioners.

¶22

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶23

R. Shekhar Cp 3

Mr Vijay Khurana v. State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Vijay Khurana v. State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Peter Bonnerjee And Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Dr.Indu Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Tulsi Yadav And Ors. Vs State of Jharkdhand And Anr.

Noor Jahan Khatoon And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Narendra Kumar Srivastava Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.