Quashed

Jitendra Lohra v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Mar 2021Cr.M.P./125/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a criminal miscellaneous petition quashed orders dated 04.09.2020 and 17.10.2020 for issuing arrest warrant and process because Form-IV lacked time and place details. The matter was remitted to proceed afresh.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 04.09.2020 and 17.10.2020 quashed. Matter remitted to proceed afresh. Interim order 09.02.2021 vacated.

Jitendra Lohra Vs the State of Jharkhand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 125 of 2021

¶3

Jitendra Lohra, aged about 26 years, Son of Bishnu Lohra, resident of village Pahamu, P.O. Bhurso, P.S. Sisai, District- Gumla

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Supriya Dayal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A.P.P.

¶9

03/15.03.2021. Heard Mrs. Supriya Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶10

Mr. Someshwar Roy, learned A.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-State.

¶11

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

¶12

The petitioner has preferred this criminal miscellaneous petition for quashing the orders dated 04.09.2020 and 17.10.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga by which warrant of arrest and a process under Section 82 Cr. P.C. has been issued against the petitioner respectively.

¶13

Pursuant to the order dated 09.02.2021, copy of Form-IV has been received. On perusal of Form-IV, it transpires that there is no mention of time and place, which is in violation of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. v. The State of

¶14

Jharkhand , reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712 .

¶15

-2-

¶16

In view of the fact that the judgment passed by this Court is not complied in issuing the Form-IV, the impugned orders dated 04.09.2020 and 17.10.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga are quashed.

¶17

The matter is remitted back to the court below to proceed afresh in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam (supra), in accordance with law.

¶18

With the above direction, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.

¶19

Interim order dated 09.02.2021 stands vacated.

¶20

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶21

Ajay/

Jitendra Lohra v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Lohra 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

Dr Kameshwar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt Shiv Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Daya Nand Poddar Vs State of Jharkhand

Ranjit Singh Vs Sri Sarat Kumar Ghosh

Binod Das Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Uttam Sahu And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.