Allowed

Balbir Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Oct 2021Cr.M.P./1787/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed impugned orders dated 31.03.2021 and 15.02.2021 due to contradictory findings by the revisional court regarding execution of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and lack of service reports under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The matter was remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed afresh.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 31.03.2021 and 15.02.2021 issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were quashed, and the matter remitted to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to proceed afresh.

Balbir Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1787 of 2021

¶3

Balbir Singh, son of Sri Ram Singh, aged about 35 years, resident of House No. 40, Mauvya Basti, Gurudwara Para, P.O. Jhalmala, P.S. Jhalmala, District-Raigarh, State-Chhatisgarh-496001

¶4

…… Petitioner

¶5

Versus State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Party

¶6

---------

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Verma, Spl. P.P.

¶9

05/Dated: 04/10/2021

¶10

Heard Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suraj Verma, learned counsel for the State.

¶11

Petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of order dated 31.03.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No. 37 of 2021 by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur and also for quashing of order dated 15.02.2021 passed in Bistupur P.S. Case No. 16 of 2020 passed by learned C.J.M, Jamshedpur whereby process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is illegality in the impugned order which has been confirmed by the revisional court which is against the mandate of law. He submits that the I.O. has not filed any report as to what action has been taken for execution of warrant. He submits that there is no service report of the notice issued under section 41-A Cr.P.C.

¶13

Learned Spl. P.P. submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders. He submits that one of the date mentioned for appearance of the accused was on 4^th of April, 2021 which is holiday being a Sunday.

¶14

Perused the order dated 15.02.2021. It transpires that there is no

¶15

¶16

finding with regard to service of notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C and other summons. The revisional court has given finding that there is no report submitted by the I.O. that the process has been executed and if the process has not been executed in terms of order, the order itself become infructuous but this is for the learned C.J.M. to ensure and record its satisfaction as to whether the order passed by the learned C.J.M, has been complied with or not and if it has not been complied with as required by the order, then the order become infructuous and fresh order is required to be passed. Thereafter, the revisional court confirmed the order passed by the learned C.J.M.

¶17

The finding of the revisional court itself is contradictory. It is admitted therein that there is no execution report submitted by the I.O., although the revision application has been dismissed by the revisional court.

¶18

In the interest of justice although this petition has been filed after dismissal of revision petition invoking power under section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court can exercise its power and in view of contradictory finding given by the revisional court, order dated 31.03.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No. 37 of 2021 by learned Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur and order dated 15.02.2021 passed in Bistupur P.S. Case No. 16 of 2020 by learned C.J.M, Jamshedpur whereby process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur, are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur to proceed afresh in terms of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.

¶20

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶21

Satyarthi/

Balbir Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh 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

Laxman Prasd Vs the State of Jharkhand

Radhika Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lakhwinder Pal Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shashi Bhushan Samad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Indrajeet Kaur Alias Monalisha and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Abhijit Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand