Allowed

Kamrul Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Oct 2020Cr.M.P./1698/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition praying for the quashing of a non-speaking cognizance order. The judge found the lower court's order cryptic and mechanically passed without recording subjective satisfaction or materials, violating Section 204 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 05.08.2019 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with the provisions of law.

Kamrul Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 1698 of 2020

¶3

Kamrul Ansari…..…....... Petitioner(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand ………..

¶6

Opp. Party(s)

¶7

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen Through:-Video Conferencing

¶8

…… For the Petitioner : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, Spl. P.P.

¶9

3/19.10.2020 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 to the audio and video clarity and quality.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays to ignore the defects and take up the matter on merits.

¶13

Defects stand ignored for the present.

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

In this application, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 05.08.2019, by which cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code ad Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, has been taken and, thereafter, summon has been issued to the petitioner to appear.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cognizance order is absolutely bad and is a non-speaking order and does not reflect any subjective satisfaction as to what are the materials to take cognizance against this petitioner. He submits that the requirement of Section 204 Cr.P.C. has not been dealt with the impugned order.

¶17

After going through the impugned order, I find that the impugned order is absolutely cryptic and non-speaking. What are the materials against the petitioner in the impugned order have not been mentioned. In a most mechanical way, the impugned order has been passed. This Court in the case of “ Amresh Kumar Dhiraj & Ors.- versus- State of Jharkhand & Anr.,

¶18

-2-

¶19

reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199 ”, has passed the detailed order discussing the provisions and requirement of order under Section 190 & 204 Cr.P.C. The impugned order is not in consonance with the aforesaid order.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the order dated 05.08.2019 is not in consonance with the provisions as laid down, thus, this application stands allowed. The impugned order dated 05.08.2019 is, hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶21

This criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed.

¶22

Mukund/-cp.3

Kamrul Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamrul Ansari 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

Aakash Yadav Alias Akash Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Badal Khan Alias MD Badal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baby Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tulsi Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shankar Lal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saba Parveen Alias Sabba Parween Vs the State of Jharkhand