Quashed

Wanshropan Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Jan 2020Cr.M.P./3522/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an impugned order dated 26.8.2019 by SDJM, Ranchi, which took cognizance for offences under various sections of IPC. The court found the order cryptic, non-speaking, and mechanically passed without mentioning materials or complying with procedural requirements of Cr.P.C. 204.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 26.08.2019 is quashed and set aside. The learned court below is directed to pass an order afresh in accordance with the provisions of law.

Wanshropan Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P No. 3522 of 2019

¶3

Wanshropan Yadav @ Wansropan Yadav

¶4

Harshan Singh @ Harshan Singh Bhadauriya

¶5

Sanjana Singh

¶6

Rajesh Singh

¶7

Kiran Devi @ Kiran Singh

¶8

Anisha Singh

¶9

Lavkesh Bhadauriya @ Lokesh Singh Bhadauriya

¶10

Kushkesh Bhadauriya @ Kushkesh Singh

¶11

Saroj Singh

¶12

Shail Kumari Singh …. …. Petitioner(s). Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Shambhu Nath Singh …. …. Opposite Party(s) ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

¶13

-----FOR THE PETITIONER(S) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate FOR THE STATE : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, APP ------

¶14

04/14.01.2020

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶16

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 26.8.2019 by which, the learned SDJM, Ranchi has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471,120B, 193 & 34 IPC in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No. 706 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 6748 of 2014 and summons have been issued.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned is cryptic and non-speaking as well as there is non-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 for the offence as alleged. He further submits that what are the materials for taking the cognizance, has not been reflected in the order impugned, which makes the impugned order defective.

¶18

After going through the record and the order impugned, I find that the court below has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471,120B, 193 & 34 IPC. What are the materials against the petitioners in the order impugned has not been mentioned. In most mechanical way, the impugned order has been passed. This Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors , reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199 has passed the

¶19

-2-

¶20

detailed order discussing the provisions and requirement of order under Section 190 and 204 Cr.P.C. The impugned order is not in consonance with the aforesaid order.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that order dated 26.08.2019 is not in consonance with the provisions as laid down, thus, order impugned is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶22

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

¶23

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

¶24

(ANANDA SEN , J)

¶25

anjali/ C.P 3

Wanshropan Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wanshropan Yadav 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

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

Manish Kumar Keshri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Umesh Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand