Quashed

Rajesh Kumar Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Jan 2020Cr.M.P./37/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed an impugned order dated 05.11.2019 wherein a Magistrate took cognizance of offences under various sections of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held the order was cryptic, non-speaking, lacked application of mind, and failed to specify materials warranting proceedings against the petitioners. The order was set aside and directed to be passed afresh in compliance with Cr.P

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 05.11.2019 is quashed and set aside with a direction to pass order afresh.

Rajesh Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 37 of 2020

¶3

1. Rajesh Kumar Sinha

¶4

2. Pramila Devi

¶5

3. Usha Devi ... Petitioner(s). -Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Anjali Srivastava … Opp. Party(s).

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN .

¶10

For the Petitioner(s) :Mr. Dilip Kr. Chakraverty, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P.

¶11

02/20.01.2020: Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶12

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 5.11.2019 by which, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur, has taken cognizance for the offence under Section(s) 341, 323, 498A and 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 16/2019 (G.R. No. 1227 of 2019).

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned is cryptic and non-speaking 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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) 341, 323, 498A and 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. What are the materials against the petitioners, who are the brother in-law, sister in-law and mother in-law, 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.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that order dated 5.11.2019 is not in consonance with the provisions as laid down, thus, order impugned is, hereby,

¶17

quashed and set aside.

¶18

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

¶19

The learned court below is directed to pass order afresh in

¶20

accordance with the provisions of law.

¶21

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶22

Anu/C.P.-3

Rajesh Kumar Sinha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Sinha 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

Hemraj Chouhan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mithilesh Kumar Represented through His Grandfather Sona Mahra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dukhu Ram Mahato Alias Dukhi Ram Mahato Alias Dukhu Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jai Shankar Pathak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tabasum Ara Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Sao Alias Bijay Kumar Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand