A Cr.M.P regarding a criminal trial under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court deprecated the trial court's suo moto stay of proceedings without a superior court order and affirmed the lower order upholding the charge.
The application stands dismissed; the court below directed to proceed and pass a final judgment in G.R. No. 2815 of 2002.
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. 1332 of 2010
Makardam Singh …. …. Petitioner(s). Versus State of Jharkhand …. …. Opposite Party(s) ------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN. -----FOR THE PETITIONER(S) : Mr. Vishnu Kr. Sharma, Advocate FOR THE STATE : APP ------
05/4.3.2020
Trial court report is kept on record.
As per the report of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad dated 7.2.20, I find that the court is awaiting for order of this case i.e Cr.M.P No. 1332 of 2010 (instant Cr.M.P).
This court fails to understand when the trial is at the stage of conclusion and and the record is fixed for argument, why the court is waiting for the order from this Court when there is no interim order staying any proceeding, passed in this case. This suggests that the Magistrate has himself stayed entire proceeding without there being any order from the superior court. This approach of the Magistrate is deprecated. Once a Magistrate proceeds with trial and there is no order of staying, the trial by any superior court, the trial court should proceed and come to a logical conclusion rather than suo moto staying the proceeding in the garb of “waiting for the order of the High Court”.
The court below is directed to proceed and pass a final judgment in G.R. No. 2815 of 2002.
Considering the aforesaid fact, I am not inclined to entertain this application. Furthermore on the merits also I find that the order impugned needs no interference as the same is reasoned order considering all aspects including the injury sustained. The court below has rightly held that there is no circumstance and material to alter the charge.
Accordingly this application stands dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX to the court concerned immediately.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's suo moto stay of proceedings without a High Court order is a correct legal approach.
Whether there is cause to interfere with the reasoned order maintaining the charge against the petitioner.
Makardam Singh
State of Jharkhand
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
