Allowed

Sitaram Murmu Alias Sitaram Manjhi Hadam v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Dec 2019Cr.M.P./345/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed two orders dated 02.02.2017 and 14.07.2017 issued by the lower court under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. The orders were set aside for being cryptic and lacking recorded subjective satisfaction by the Magistrate. The matter was remanded to the Court below to pass a fresh order complying with statutory requirements.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 02.02.2017 and 14.07.2017 under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below for passing a fresh order.

Sitaram Murmu Alias Sitaram Manjhi Hadam Vs the… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 345 of 2019

¶3

Sitaram Murmu @ Sitaram Manjhi Hadam

¶4

Ram Lal Marandi..…....... Petitioner (s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Jharkhand ………… Opp. Party(s)

¶7

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen

¶8

…… For the Petitioners : Mr. M.K.Sah, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.

¶9

6/17.12.2019 Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press

¶10

this application in respect of petitioner no. 2 Ram Lal Marandi.

¶11

Thus, this application is confined only to petitioner no.1.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

In this application, the petitioner prays for quashing the orders dated 02.02.2017 and 14.07.2017 respectively, by which processes under Section 82 & 83 Cr.P.C., have been issued against him.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders are cryptic and do not record any satisfaction or reason as to why process has been issued.

¶15

Learned A.P.P. admits that the orders are absolutely cryptic and submits that the court concerned should be directed to pass a fresh order.

¶16

After hearing the parties and on going through the record, I find that both the orders are absolutely cryptic as the same do not record any subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate. Solely on the basis of the execution report of the warrant, the orders have been passed. Further the mandatory provision of law has not been complied with by the court below while issuing the impugned orders. It is mandate of the law that while issuing process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court below has to record subjective satisfaction. It is also the duty of the Court to record subjective satisfaction as to why process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is to be issued and consequently under Section 83 Cr.P.C.

¶17

Since, the subjective satisfaction is missing, I am inclined to allow this criminal miscellaneous petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 02.02.2017 and 14.07.2017, by which processes under Section 82 & 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been issued, are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court below for passing a fresh order accordingly as per law.

¶18

This criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed.

¶19

( Ananda Sen, J )

¶20

Mukund/-cp.3

Sitaram Murmu Alias Sitaram Manjhi Hadam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram Murmu Alias Sitaram Manjhi Hadam 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

Kuldeep Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sher Bahadur Singh Alias Sher Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saukat Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dr Bishwajith Bandopadyay And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Prince Singh Alias Rahul Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satish Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand