Single judge quashed an order rejecting the petitioner's discharge application and remanded it to the trial court for fresh consideration after hearing both sides, holding the impugned order to be non-reasoned.
Discharge order quashed; matter remanded to trial court to pass a fresh reasoned order within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 485 of 2014
Guddu Tiwary @ Dhananjay Tiwary, son of Krishna Dev Tiwary, resident of Kaladih, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Vikash Kishore, A.P.P.
13/14.03.2018 Heard Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Vikash Kishore, learned A.P.P.
This application is directed against the order dated 28.04.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Govindpur P. S. Case No. 355 of 2013 by which the discharge application preferred on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected.
Mr. Vikash Kishore, learned A.P.P., at the outset, submits that after charge has been framed against the petitioner there has been no further progress in the trial and summons have been issued against the witnesses for their appearance.
The allegation made in the First Information Report reveals that the petitioner along with other accused persons were involved in the illegal business of coal. After investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet cognizance was taken and thereafter an application was preferred by the petitioner for his discharge from the prosecution. The same was rejected on 28.04.2014 which is the order impugned to the present application.
It appears from the order dated 28.04.2014 that only factual aspect of the case has been discussed and no materials which may or might have been collected by the investigating officer which would suggest the complicity of the petitioner has been discussed in the impugned order. The impugned order, therefore, is clearly a nonreasoned order not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly the same is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
-2-
The matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the respective sides. The exercise indicated above should be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This application stands disposed off.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Umesh/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a discharge order which discusses only factual aspects and ignores material evidence is sustainable in law.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Guddu Tiwary
State through A.P.P.
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
