Allowed

Sudhakar Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Oct 2020Cr.M.P./1492/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed the orders impugned issued by the lower courts which called for the petitioner under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. The court found these orders defective for non-application of mind and failure to record subjective satisfaction as mandated by law.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 10.6.2019 and 19.11.2019 are quashed, set aside, and the lower court is directed to pass an order afresh.

Sudhakar Kumar Singh Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1492 of 2020

¶2

Sudhakar Kumar Singh .... Petitioner(s). -VersusThe State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s). ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN . Through: Video Conferencing

¶3

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kr. Choubey, Advocate. For the State : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, A.P.P. ------

¶4

03/12.10.2020: The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has 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

Defects as pointed out by the office stand ignored for the present.

¶7

By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 10.6.2019 and 19.11.2019 by which, the courts below have issued processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C against the petitioner in connection with Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 102/2018 (G.R. No. 2433 of 2018).

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment/order passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 (Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand), submits that the orders impugned have been passed without application of mind. He further submits that the procedure and requirements, which have been laid down in the section should be strictly followed while issuing the process under Sections 82 Cr.P.C, but the same has not been followed and thus the orders impugned are absolutely bad. He further submits that what are the materials against the petitioner, which suggest that the petitioner was evading his arrest, has also not been mentioned in the order impugned.

¶9

From perusal of order impugned, it appears that the court below has not recorded subjective satisfaction in the order impugned, which is necessary for issuing the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. In most mechanical way and without application of mind as well as without recording the subjective satisfaction, the process under Sections 82 Cr.,P.C has been issued against the petitioner. This type of order, which is non-speaking and reflects non-application of mind cannot be allowed to sustain in the eye of law. 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 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.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that orders impugned dated

¶11

10.6.2019 and 19.11.2019 are not in consonance with the provision of law as well as judgment passed by this Court. Thus, orders impugned are, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶12

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

¶13

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

¶14

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶15

Anu/C.P.-3

Sudhakar Kumar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakar Kumar Singh 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

Munendra Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Home Department

Tarangani Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Higher Technical Education and Skill Development Deptt

Pushpa Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandrasekhar Azad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prabir Kumar Tafadar Alias Probir Tafadar Alias Prabeer Kumar Tafadar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chandrika Yadav Alias Chandrika Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand