Allowed

Tabasum Ara v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Jan 2020Cr.M.P./413/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside a Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate's order taking cognizance of offences under various sections of the IPC because the order was cryptic, non-speaking, failed to specify materials, and did not comply with Section 204 Cr.P.C. or the precedent in Amresh Kumar Dhiraj.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 4.10.2018 is quashed and set aside. Thelearned court below is directed to pass an order afresh.

Tabasum Ara 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. 413 of 2019

¶3

1. Tabasum Ara @ Tabsum Ara

¶4

2. Momina Khatoon

¶5

3. Sultan Ansari

¶6

4. Tarannum Ara @ Tarnum Ara ... Petitioner(s).

¶7

-Versus-

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

Fatma Bibi … Opp. Party(s).

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN .

¶12

-----For the Petitioner(s) :Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P.

¶13

Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶14

06/20.01.2020:

¶15

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 4.10.2018 by which, the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, has taken cognizance for the offence under Section(s) 341, 448, 323, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with Husainabad P.S. Case No. 69/2018 (G.R. No. 670/2018).

¶16

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 and thereafter issuing summons against the petitioners, has not been reflected in the order impugned, which makes the impugned order defective.

¶17

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

¶18

After going through the record and the order impugned, I find that the court below has taken cognizance for the offence under Section(s) 341, 448, 323, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. What are the materials against the petitioners which warrants proceeding against them 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.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that order dated 4.10.2018 is not in consonance with the provisions as laid down, thus, order impugned is, hereby,

¶20

quashed and set aside.

¶21

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

¶22

The learned court below is directed to pass order afresh in

¶23

accordance with the provisions of law.

¶24

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶25

Anu/C.P.-3

Tabasum Ara v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tabasum Ara 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

Rajesh Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

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