Allowed

Banarsi Singh Alias Vanarsi Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC26 Feb 2020Cr.M.P./443/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court of Jharkhand overturned an order taking cognizance because it was mechanical and cryptic, failing to reflect materials or satisfy the requirements of Sections 190 and 204 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 31.3.2016 taken cognizance of the offence was quashed and set aside; parties directed to pass order afresh.

Banarsi Singh Alias Vanarsi Singh Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 443 of 2020

¶2

Banarsi Singh @ Vanarsi Singh ... Petitioner(s). -Versus-

¶3

The State of Jharkhand … Opp. Party(s).

¶4

------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN .

¶5

-----For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate. For the State : A.P.P.

¶6

02/26.02.2020:

¶7

Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶8

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.3.2016 by which, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Garhwa, has taken cognizance for the offence under Section(s) 33(a), 33(c) and 63 of the Indian Forest Act in connection with C.F. Case No. 1072 of 2015.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 issuing process against the accused. 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.

¶10

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

¶11

After going through the record and the order impugned, I find that the court below has taken cognizance for the offence under Section(s) 33(a), 33(c) and 63 of the Indian Forest Act. What are the materials against the petitioner has not been mentioned in the order impugned. In most mechanical way, the order taking cognizance has been passed. This Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199 (Jhr.) has passed the detailed order discussing the provisions of Sections 190 and 204 Cr.P.C. The impugned order is not in consonance with the aforesaid order.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that order dated 31.3.2016 is not in consonance with the provisions as laid down under Sections 190 and 204 Cr.P.C. Thus, order impugned is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶13

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

¶14

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

¶15

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶16

Anu/C.P.-3

Banarsi Singh Alias Vanarsi Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banarsi Singh Alias Vanarsi Singh 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

Amrendra Gupta Alias Amrendra Kr Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Jha And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rahul Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shamshad Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Murari Nath Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand