Quashed

Vijay Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Oct 2021Cr.M.P./1556/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Charter/Petition, the High Court of Jharkhand quashed two cryptic orders dated 2014 and 2015 directing process under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. due to lack of recorded satisfaction and non-compliance with Form-IV requirements. The matter was remitted for fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 28.07.2014 and 17.01.2015 regarding the Katkamsandi Case were quashed and the matter remitted to the Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, for fresh proceedings.

Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 1556 of 2020

¶3

----

¶4

Vijay Kumar, aged about 34 years, son of Sri Brahmdeo Mahto, resident of Village Gouriya Karma, PO Barhi, PS Barhi, District Hazaribagh ….. Petitioner

¶5

-- Versus --

¶6

The State of Jharkhand …... Opposite Party

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶9

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Sajid Yunus, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P

¶10

¶11

/18.10.2021 Heard Mr. Sajid Yunus, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suraj Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

¶12

¶13

This petitions has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.07.2014 and 17.01.2015 by which process under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C respectively have been directed to be issued against the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. Sajid Yunus, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that by order dated 28.07.2014, the process under section 82 Cr.P.C has been directed to be issued. He submits that the order is cryptic in nature. There is no satisfaction regarding which is the parameter of passing the order under section 82 Cr.P.C. The order dated 17.01.2015 has been passed under section 83 Cr.P.C.

¶15

Mr. Suraj Verma, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and this Court may not interfere in the same.

¶16

On perusal of the impugned order dated 28.07.2014 it transpires that the said order is passed in a very cryptic manner. There is no satisfaction recorded in such order which is the parameter of passing the order under section 82 Cr.P.C. There is no mention of time and place which is the requirement in terms of Form –IV Cr.P.C. When the order dated 28.07.2014 itself is not sustainable, the order dated 17.01.2015 will also not survive and the said order is also cryptic in nature.

¶17

In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 28.07.2014 and 17.01.2015 in connection with Katkamsandi (Pelawal) Case No.48 of 2014, corresponding to G.R.No.542 of 2014, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Hazaribagh are quashed.

¶18

The matter is remitted back to the concerned court to proceed afresh in terms of Cr.P.C.

¶19

Disposed of.

¶20

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)

¶21

SI/

Vijay Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Indra Deo Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vinit Kumar Dangi Alias Viit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Geeta Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajit Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Anis Ansari and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand