Allowed

Binod Kumar Seth Alias Binod Kumar Alias Binod Bhadani v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Dec 2019Cr.M.P./2221/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a criminal order taking cognizance without recording reasons for disagreeing with the police charge sheet. The High Court held that differing without reasons is legally infirm and set aside the order remitting the matter for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

The order of taking cognizance dated 02.08.2018 passed by Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih is set aside and matter remitted for fresh decision.

Binod Kumar Seth Alias Binod Kumar Alias Binod Bhadani Vs… — Caste Atrocities | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 2221 of 2019

¶3

Binod Kumar Seth @ Binod Kumar @ Binod Bhadani

¶4

Pramod Kumar Seth @ Pramod Bhadani

¶5

Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Bhadani

¶6

Vivek Seth

¶7

manish Kumar @ Manish Bhadani

¶8

Binit Kumar Seth @ Vinit Bhadani..…...... Petitioner (s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Jharkhand

¶11

Binod Oraon………… Opp. Parties

¶12

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen

¶13

…… For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kr. Trivedi, Advocate : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.

¶14

2/04.12.2019 Heard the parties.

¶15

The petitioners are confining their prayer to the challenge thrown in the order taking cognizance dated 02.08.2018.

¶16

An FIR being Nimiaghat P.S.Case No. 67 of 2017 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 342, 323, 324, 353, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The police investigated the case and filed charge sheet against some of the accused persons and exonerated the others. These petitioners were exonerated. After the charge sheet was filed, the Court differed and showed its disagreement with the finding of the Investigating Officer in exonerating these petitioners and, thereafter, taking cognizance of the offence, issued summons against the accused persons.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the summoning order is absolutely wrong as no reasons have been recorded as to why these petitioners have been summoned and what are the materials for summoning them. He submits that the Court since was differing with the police report, should have given a reasoning as to why he is differing. In absence of the said reasoning, the order issuing summons dated 02.08.2018, is bad in law.

¶18

Learned A.P.P. submits that since there are sufficient materials, which make offence, cognizance was taken. But, he admits that no reason has been given as to why the Court differed with the charge sheet and issued summons.

¶19

After hearing the parties, I have gone through the impugned order. The impugned order suggests that the court differed with the charge

¶20

-2-

¶21

sheet and took cognizance of the offence against these petitioners and others and issued summons against these petitioners, who were not charge sheeted. According to the Investigating Officer, since there were no materials against these petitioners, they were exonerated. The Court differed with the said finding. Once the court differs with the finding of the Investigating Officer and the finding which has been mentioned in the charge sheet, he is duty bound to give reasoning as to why he is differing. In this respect, reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Nupur Talwar- versus- Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 465 ” and also in the case of “ Sunil Bharti Mittal- versus- Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609 ”.

¶22

Since, the Magistrate differs with the finding without giving any reasons, I am inclined to set aside the order dated 02.08.2018. Accordingly, the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence dated 02.08.2018, passed by the Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions JudgeI, Giridih is hereby set aside so far as these petitioners are concerned. The matter is remitted to the Court below for taking a fresh decision.

¶23

This application stands allowed.

¶24

( Ananda Sen, J )

¶25

Mukund/-cp.3

Binod Kumar Seth Alias Binod Kumar Alias Binod Bhadani v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Kumar Seth Alias Binod Kumar Alias Binod Bhadani 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

State of Jharkhand through Range Forest Officer Namely Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs Niraj Kumar

Suryakant Vaidya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jaidhar Sundi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Atish Mishra Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Manoj Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand