Single-judge High Court quashed a cryptic and non-speaking order dated 04.12.2019 which took cognizance under Sections 420 and 406 IPC and issued summons. The Court held the order violated Section 190 and 204 Cr.P.C.
Impugned order dated 04.12.2019 set aside; court below directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 465 of 2020
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
For the Petitioner : Mr. B.K.Dubey, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.
2/03.03.2020 Heard the parties.
In this application, the petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 04.12.2019, by which cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken and, thereafter, summon has been issued to the petitioners to appear.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cognizance order is absolutely bad, vague and cryptic and does not suggest any application of mind. He submits that nothing has been mentioned as to what are the ingredients and what are the over act which attract offence under Sections 420, 406 IPC. He further submits that there is no material to summon these petitioners. Even if there is material, what is the same, has not been mentioned in the impugned order, which makes the order cryptic and non-speaking.
After hearing the parties, I have gone through the impugned order. After going through the same, I find that the impugned order is absolutely cryptic and non-speaking. What are the materials to attract Section 420 & 406 IPC, have not been mentioned in the impugned order. In a most mechanical way, the impugned order has been passed. This Court in the case of “ Amresh Kumar Dhiraj & Ors.- versus- State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199 ”, has passed the detailed order discussing the provisions and requirement of order under Section 190 & 204 Cr.P.C. The impugned order is not in consonance with the aforesaid order.
-2-
In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the order dated 04.12.2019 is not in consonance with the legal provisions as laid down. Thus, this application stands allowed. The impugned order dated 04.12.2019 is, hereby, set aside. The court below is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of law.
This criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed.
Mukund/-cp.3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order taking cognizance and issuing summons is cryptic, non-speaking and in violation of legal provisions requiring reasoned application of mind under Sections 190 and 204 Cr.P.C.
Whether Section 190 and 204 Cr.P.C. mandates that materials attracting offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC must be mentioned in the cognizance order?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amresh Kumar Dhiraj & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.Referred¶11
Amresh Kumar Dhiraj & Ors.- versus- State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2020 (1) JLJR 199
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Dropati Devi
Dipti Khandelwal
Ram Khandelwal
State of Jharkhand
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
