Allowed

Anil Kumar Shrivastwa v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Jan 2020Cr.M.P./45/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging a mechanical, non-speaking order taken in cognizance of an offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 120B IPC for failure to comply with Section 204 Cr.P.C. The Court quashed the order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 4.10.2019 is quashed and set aside. The learned court below is directed to pass an order afresh.

Anil Kumar Shrivastwa Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P No. 45 of 2020

¶3

Anil Kumar Shrivastwa @ Shrivastva …. …. Petitioner(s). Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Ram Kumar Bedia …. …. Opposite Party(s)

¶4

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

¶6

¶7

FOR THE PETITIONER(S) : Mr. Manish Mishra, Advocate FOR THE STATE : Mr. Rakesh Kumar No.2, APP ------

¶8

03/21.01.2020

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

¶10

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.10.2019 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, Porahat Chaibasa has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 406, 409, 420 & 120B IPC in connection with Sonua P.S. Case No. 42 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 251 of 2017.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

¶12

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

¶13

After going through the record and the order impugned, I find that the court below has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 406, 409, 420 & 120B IPC. What are the materials against the petitioner 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 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.

¶14

-2-

¶15

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that order dated 4.10.2019 is not in consonance with the provisions as laid down, thus, order impugned is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶16

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

¶17

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

¶18

(ANANDA SEN , J)

¶19

anjali/ C.P 3

Anil Kumar Shrivastwa v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Shrivastwa 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

Jai Shankar Pathak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tabasum Ara Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Thapa Chhetry Alias Santosh Chhetry Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Tamanna Bibi Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Miraj Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand