Allowed

Delo Pahan v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Jan 2020Cr.M.P./4283/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition challenged an order of cognizance passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The High Court found the order defective as it lacked detail on materials warranting proceedings and was passed mechanically without sufficient application of mind. The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 10.12.2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, taking cognizance is quashed and set aside. The court below is directed to pass an order afresh.

Delo Pahan 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. 4283 of 2019

¶3

1. Delo Pahan

¶4

2. Binod Munda @ Biod Pahan @ Binod Nagurwar @ Binod Nugduwar @ Binod Pahan

¶5

3. Binod Nagurwar @ Firoj Pahan @ Firoz Pahan ... Petitioner(s). -Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Mahdev Bhagat

¶8

… Opp. Party(s).

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN .

¶10

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

¶11

02/15.01.2020: Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶12

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2018 by which, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, has taken cognizance for the offence under Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 384, 504, 506 and 379 IPC in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No. 213 of 2017 (G.R. NO. 6402/2017).

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 and thereafter issuing summons against the petitioners, 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) 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 384, 504, 506 and 379 IPC. 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.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that order dated 10.12.2018 is not in consonance with the provisions as laid down, thus, order impugned is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶17

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

¶18

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

¶19

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶20

Anu/C.P.-3

Delo Pahan v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Delo Pahan 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

Kamini Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uma Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rahul Tiwary Alias Ravi Gopal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Ghamra Oraon Alias Dhamra Bhagat Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Satan Kumar Sao Alias Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand