Allowed

Ramesh Kumar Alias Ramesh Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Mar 2020Cr.M.P./549/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes a mechanical and vague order taking cognizance and issuing a summons under Sections 323 and 420 IPC. The court held that the order failed to disclose subjective satisfaction or materials, violating Sections 190 and 204 Cr.P.C., and remitted the matter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 26.11.2019 set aside; matter remitted to court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with provisions of law.

Ramesh Kumar Alias Ramesh Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 549 of 2020

¶3

Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Prasad

¶4

Kedar Prasad

¶5

Tara Devi…..…....... Petitioner(s)

¶6

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

¶7

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.

¶9

3/04.03.2020 Heard the parties.

¶10

In this application, the petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 26.11.2019, by which cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 323 & 420 IPC has been taken and summon has been issued to the petitioners for appearance.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cognizance order is absolutely bad and is a non-speaking order and does not reflect any subjective satisfaction as to what are the materials to take cognizance against these petitioners. He submits that what are the materials to proceed against these petitioners and how the offence under Sections 323 &420 IPC is made out, has also not been mentioned.

¶12

After going through the record, I find that the impugned order is absolutely vague and cryptic. What are the materials against the petitioners in the impugned order have not been mentioned. 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.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the order dated 26.11.2019 is not in consonance with the legal provisions as laid down. Thus, this application stands allowed. The impugned order dated 26.11.2019 is, hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted to the court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶14

This criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed.

¶15

( Ananda Sen, J )

¶16

Mukund/-cp.3

Ramesh Kumar Alias Ramesh Prasad v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Alias Ramesh Prasad 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

Smt Dropti Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Aadil Muzaffar Alias Adil Muzaffar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vidya Sagar Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Makardam Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajeshwar Singh Alias Rajeshwar Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand