The petitioner sought quashing of a court order taking cognizance of offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court dismissed the petition, noting the petitioner failed to appear in the trial court despite the petition being filed years earlier, causing separation of the co-accused case.
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.M.P. No. 1914 of 2011
Abhishek Kumar Singh @ Sonu Singh …Petitioner -V e r s u s- The State of Jharkhand ... Opp.Party
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State :- A.P.P.
05/02.04.2019 The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.05.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Sadar (Satbarwa) P.S. Case no. 551 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 2466 of 2010, whereby cognizance of the offences under Sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act has been taken against the petitioner, as well as for the quashing of entire proceeding arising therefrom, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj.
On perusal of the report submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj vide letter dated 12.02.2019, it appears that the accused Abhishek Kumar Singh @ Sonu Singh (the petitioner herein) and Birendra Yadav have not yet appeared before the learned court below and the case of accused Satyendra Jee @ Satyendra Paswan @ Sakindra Manjhi has been separated, which is pending at the stage of evidence.
The present petition was filed in the year 2011 and no interim order was passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner. Despite the said fact, the petitioner did not appear before the court below in connection with the aforesaid case leading to separation of the case of co-accused Satyendra Jee @ Satyendra Paswan @ Sakindra Manjhi. Accordingly, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The present Cr.M.P. is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Ritesh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash the order taking cognizance under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961, given the petitioner's absence.
Whether the Cr.M.P. should be entertained despite the petitioner failing to appear in the trial court.
Whether the non-appearance of the petitioner leading to separation of the co-accused warrants granting interim relief.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abhishek Kumar Singh @ Sonu Singh
The State of Jharkhand
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
