Allowed

Shakil Ahmad Alias Sakil Ahmad Khan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Oct 2020Cr.M.P./1131/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order issuing process under Section 83 Cr.P.C for attachment of property. High Court quashed the order below for lack of subjective satisfaction and procedural non-compliance, directing afresh order.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 18.2.2019 is quashed and set aside. Petitioner directed to pass order afresh in accordance with provisions of law.

Shakil Ahmad Alias Sakil Ahmad Khan Vs the State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1131 of 2020 Shakil Ahmad @ Sakil Ahmad Khan .... Petitioner(s). -Versus1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nisma Khatoon … Opp. Party(s).

¶2

------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN . Through: Video Conferencing -----For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.N. Das, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P.

¶3

04/08.10.2020: The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has

¶4

been held through video conferencing today at 11:00 A.M. They have no complaint in respect of the audio and video clarity and quality.

¶5

Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶6

By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 18.2.2019, by which, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, has issued process under Section 83 Cr.P.C against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. 301/2016.

¶7

Order dated 18.2.2019, which is under challenge, reads as follows:-

¶8

“18.2.2019 : Complainant Hasiman Khatoon is on attendance. A petition to issue process 83 Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of complainant.

¶9

Heard, learned counsel on behalf of complainant. After hearing it appears accused has not surrendered before this court in view of ABP No. 275 of 2018 passed by 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge, Latehar.

¶10

Hence O/c to issue process 83 Cr.P.C against the absent accused. Put up on 8.3.2019 for appearance.”

¶11

From the aforesaid order, I find that nothing has been mentioned on what basis, the court has arrived at a conclusion to issue process under Section 83 Cr.P.C i.e. for attachment of the property of the petitioner. The conditions, as laid down under Section 83 Cr.P.C, has not been followed by the court below.

¶12

This Court has dealt with the issue in detail in Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 (Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand) and held that while issuing the process under Section 82 or 83 Cr.P.C, the court has to apply his mind and the procedure and requirements, which have been laid down in the section should be strictly followed. The court below has not recorded any subjective satisfaction, which makes the orders impugned bad in law.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that order dated 18.2.2019 is not in consonance with the provision of law as well as judgment passed by this Court. Thus, order impugned is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶14

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

¶15

The learned court below is directed to pass order afresh in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶16

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶17

Anu/C.P.-3

Shakil Ahmad Alias Sakil Ahmad Khan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakil Ahmad Alias Sakil Ahmad Khan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Captain Vidya Binod Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner

Madhurendu Bhushan Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Neyaz Ahmad Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Muzammil Hussain Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baski Nath Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanaullah Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand