Allowed

Ram Vinay Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Oct 2020Cr.M.P./1517/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed a magisterial order taking cognizance and summoning the petitioner under Section 15 EPC Act, 1986. The order was held cryptic and non-speaking for failing to record materials, violating Section 204 CrPC and precedent.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04.10.2019 in C.P. No.834 of 2019 quashed and set aside; matter remanded to court below to proceed afresh.

Ram Vinay Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Environment and Pollution | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.1517 of 2020

----

Ram Vijay Singh

… Petitioner

-versus-

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Ram Narayan Choudhary … Opposite Parties

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None

¶12

¶13

03/ 13.10.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State through Video Conferencing. 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 complain in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

¶14

2. This case was listed/supposed to be listed before the Lawazima Board for passing an order in respect of the defects, pointed out by the Office.

¶15

3. Considering the pandemic situation where the Court has minimized the footfall of the lawyers and their Clerks in the Court, this Court felt proper to get all the cases listed before this Court so that the defects can be looked into at this stage only. Thus, this case is listed today before this Court directly.

¶16

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays to ignore the defects and to take up this case on merits. Accordingly, the defects stand ignored for the present.

¶17

5. The petitioner, in this criminal miscellaneous petition, has challenged the order dated 04.10.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in C.P. No.834 of 2019 by which cognizance of offence under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has been taken and thereafter petitioner has been summoned.

¶18

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is absolutely cryptic and non-speaking. He submits that the Court below, while passing the impugned order has not mentioned anything as to what are the materials to issue summons to the petitioner.

¶19

7. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the impugned order dated 04.10.2019. I find that the said order is a non-speaking one and does

¶20

-: 2 :-

¶21

not reflect as to what are materials collected during investigation so as to summon the petitioner. The impugned order is absolutely cryptic and non speaking order. This Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj and Others versus State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199 (Jhr.) has passed a detailed order discussing the provisions of issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and order taking cognizance. The impugned order is not in consonance with the aforesaid order.

¶22

8. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the impugned order is prima facie bad, having been passed without recording any material which is against the petitioner so as to proceed against him. Since the impugned order is not in consonance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the law laid down in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj (supra) , exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 04.10.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in C.P. No.834 of 2019. The matter is remanded to the Court below for proceeding afresh and passing order in accordance with the provisions of law after taking into consideration the materials on record. 9. This criminal miscellaneous petition is, accordingly, allowed.

¶23

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶24

Kumar/Cp-03

Ram Vinay Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Vinay 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

Chandrasekhar Azad Vs the State of Jharkhand

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

Sudhakar Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajmuni Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ratan Lal Agrawal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Kishore Rana Vs the State of Jharkhand