The High Court quashed an impugned order dated 20.04.2011 for taking cognizance under Sections 419, 420, 409, 120(B), and 34 IPC. The court held the order was cryptic, non-speaking, and non-application of mind, failing to mention materials or comply with Section 204 Cr.P.C.
Order dated 20.04.2011 quashed; lower court directed to pass order afresh.
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. 1073 of 2011
Bhavendra Jha …. …. Petitioner(s). Versus State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party(s) With Cr.M.P No. 1086 of 2011 Naresh Ravidas …. …. Petitioner(s). Versus State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party(s) ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN. -----FOR THE PETITIONER(S) : Ms. Ritu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate FOR THE STATE : Ms. Amrita Kumari, APP ------
07/03.02.2020
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 20.04.2011 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Madhupur at Deoghar has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 419/420/409/120(B)/34 IPC in connection with Karon P.S. Case No. 78 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No. 408 of 2008( T.R. No. 86 of 2011).
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned is cryptic and non-speaking as well as there is non-application of mind. He further submits that requirement of Section 204 Cr.P.C has not been dealt with in the order impugned. He also submit that the court should have sufficiently satisfied himself before taking cognizance for the offence as alleged. He further submits that what are the materials for taking the cognizance, has not been reflected in the order impugned, which makes the impugned order non-speaking.
Learned APP opposes the prayer of the petitioners but after going through the order impugned, he cannot justify the order impugned.
After going through the record and the order impugned, I find that the court below has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 419/420/409/120(B)/34 IPC. What are the materials against the petitioners in the order impugned has not been mentioned. In most mechanical way, the impugned order has been passed. This Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors , reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199 has passed the
-2-
detailed order discussing the provisions and requirement of order under Section 190 and 204 Cr.P.C. The impugned order is not in consonance with the aforesaid order.
In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that order dated 20.04.2011 is not in consonance with the provisions as laid down, thus, order impugned is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, these petitions stand allowed.
The learned court below is directed to pass order afresh in accordance with the provisions of law.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a non-speaking order taking cognizance without discussing materials under Section 204 Cr.P.C is valid?
Whether the lower court satisfied the requirement of Section 190 Cr.P.C before taking cognizance?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amresh Kumar Dhiraj and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & OrsReferred¶8
2020 (1) JLJR 199
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhavendra Jha
Naresh Ravidas
State of Jharkhand
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
