Allowed

Aadil Muzaffar Alias Adil Muzaffar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Mar 2020Cr.M.P./474/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of criminal prosecution and the summons issued under Section 498A IPC for being cryptic and non-speaking, directing a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 07.11.2019 is set aside and the court below is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of law.

Aadil Muzaffar Alias Adil Muzaffar Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 474 of 2020

¶2

Aadil Muzaffar @ Adil Muzaffar…..…....... Petitioner(s)

¶3

Versus

¶4

State of Jharkhand & Anr………… Opp. Party(s)

¶5

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.

¶7

2/03.03.2020 Heard the parties.

¶8

In this application, the petitioner prays for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including the order dated 07.11.2019, by which cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 498 A of the Indian Penal Code has been taken and, thereafter, summon has been issued to the petitioner to appear.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 498A IPC. He further submits that there is no material to summon this petitioner. 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.

¶10

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 498A 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.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the order dated 07.11.2019 is not in consonance with the legal provisions as laid down. Thus, this application stands allowed. The impugned order dated 07.11.2019 is, hereby, set aside. The court below is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶12

This criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed.

¶13

Mukund/-cp.3

Aadil Muzaffar Alias Adil Muzaffar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aadil Muzaffar Alias Adil Muzaffar 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

Akshat Kumar Jain Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Amitava Sen Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dayanand Jee Alias Vishal Ganjhu Alias Jitendra Ganjhu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt Dropti Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vidya Sagar Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bihar Sponge Iron Ltd. through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Raj Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand