Quashed

Manish Ranjan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Jan 2020Cr.M.P./3491/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld a criminal miscellaneous petition wherein the petitioner challenged the impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate. The court quashed the order for taking cognizance under IPC Sections 406, 504, and 506 IPC as it was mechanical and failed to indicate materials or application of mind as per Section 204 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 27.3.2019 is quashed and set aside; the learned court below is directed to pass order afresh.

Manish Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 3491 of 2019

¶3

Manish Ranjan ... Petitioner(s).

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Mangaldeo Yadav … Opp. Party(s).

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN .

¶8

For the Petitioner(s) : M/s Indrajit Sinha and Ajay Kr.Sah, Advocates. For the State : A.P.P.

¶9

04/14.01.2020: Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶10

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.3.2019 by which, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Koderma, has taken cognizance for the offence under Section(s) 406, 504 and 506 IPC in connection with Protest-cumComplaint Case No. 815 of 2017 (arising out of Markacho P.S. Ce No. 40/2015).

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is cryptic and it does not suggest application of mind. He further submits that requirement of Section 204 Cr.P.C. has not been dealt with in the order impugned. He also submit that the court should have sufficiently satisfied itself before taking cognizance against the accused. He also submits that what are the materials for taking cognizance for the offence as alleged, has not been reflected in the order impugned, which makes the impugned order defective.

¶12

Learned A.P.P opposes the prayer of the petitioners but after going through the order impugned, he cannot justify the order impugned.

¶13

After going through the record and the order impugned, I find that the court below has taken cognizance for the offence under Section(s) 406, 504 and 506 IPC. What are the materials against the petitioner which warrants proceeding against him has not been mentioned in the order impugned. In most mechanical way, the impugned order has been been passed. This Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors, reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199 (Jhr.) has passed the detailed order discussing the provisions and requirement of order under Sections 190 and 204 Cr.P.C. The impugned order is not in consonance with the aforesaid order.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that order dated 27.3.2019 is not in consonance with the provisions as laid down, thus, order impugned is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶15

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

¶16

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

¶17

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶18

Anu/C.P.-3

Manish Ranjan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Ranjan 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

Ashim Imam And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Anil Kherwar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shiv Chandra Jaiswal Alias Sheo Chand Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Wanshropan Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Kumar Keshri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand