Allowed

Manish Kumar Keshri v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Jan 2020Cr.M.P./3505/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed an impugned order that took cognizance of offences. The Court held the order was non-speaking, mechanical, and failed to list materials warranting proceedings, thereby violating provisions of Section 190 Cr.P.C. and precedent.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19.8.2019 quashed and set aside; Petition allowed; Learned Court below directed to pass order afresh.

Manish Kumar Keshri Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 3505 of 2019

¶3

Manish Kumar Keshri ... Petitioner(s). -Versus-

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Sima Kumari … Opp. Party(s).

¶6

------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN . -----For the Petitioner(s) :Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P.

¶7

04/14.01.2020:

¶8

Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶9

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.8.2019 by which, the learned District and Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Gumla has taken the cognizance for the offence under Section(s) 376, 313 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in connection with SC/ST case No. 08/2019 (Bharno P.S. Case No. 5/2019) .

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is cryptic and it does not suggest application of mind. He further submits that the order is non-speaking. 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 under the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has not been reflected in the order impugned, which makes the impugned order defective.

¶11

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

¶12

After going through the record and the order impugned, I find that the court below has taken cognizance for the offence under Section(s) Section(s) 376, 313 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 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.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that order dated 19.8.2019 is not in consonance with the provisions as laid down, thus, order impugned is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶14

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

¶15

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

¶16

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶17

Anu/C.P.-3

Manish Kumar Keshri v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar Keshri 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 Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand