Dismissed

Meera Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Nov 2023Cr.M.P./461/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a criminal mercantile petition challenging a Magistrate's order of cognizance. The court applied settled law that a Magistrate need not record reasons when relying on a police report unless there is a difference of opinion, and thus held the petition lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

None. The criminal mercantile petition was dismissed with no order granting relief.

Meera Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. M. P. No. 461 of 2018

¶4

1.Meera Singh @ Mira Singh 2.Dinesh Singh .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.Arvind Burnwal .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate

¶7

04/ 02.11.2023 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

1. The instant Cr. M. P. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 18.04.2017 passed by learned CJM, Giridih in connection with Giridih (Town) P.S. Case No.165 of 2016 (G.R. No.1749 of 2016 & T.R. No.1268 of 2017) whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 448, 341, 323, 325, 384, 379, 34 IPC.

¶9

2. As per the case of the prosecution as disclosed in the FIR lodged by the informant, Arvind Burnwal, on 02.07.2016 the accused persons, Kumar Abhishek, Dinesh Singh, Meera Singh and Manjit Sharma entered into his shop armed with rod. It is alleged that said Kumar Abhishek assaulted his son, Anshu Burnwal with rod, as a result, he sustained fracture on his hand. Manjit Sharma, Dinesh Singh and Meera Singh also assaulted his son with kick and fists and took Rs.10,000/- from him. When the informant went to rescue his son, he was also assaulted.

¶10

3. The genesis of the incidence is that earlier the informant had lodged Giridih (Town) P.S. Case No.121 of 2016 under Sections 323, 325, 379 IPC and they were pressurizing him to withdraw the case and his refusal they were conjointly assaulted. It is stated that said Kumar Abhishek is a person of criminal antecedent and Tisri P.S. Case No.40 of 2009 is registered against him under Section 392 IPC and other cases as well.

¶11

4. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted on the basis of which, the cognizance has been taken.

¶12

5. Order taking cognizance is under-challenge on the ground that the same is not a reasoned and speaking order. The allegation of assault with rod is only against Kr. Abhishek and Manjit Sharma and not against these petitioners and none of the independent witness has supported the case of prosecution.

¶13

6. Learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer.

¶14

¶15

7. Law is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep S Wodeyar Vs State of Karnataka 2021 SCC On Line SC 1140 wherein it has been held that u nder Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process.

¶16

8. Only where the Court differs with the findings of the investigating agency, then it is required to pass a detailed and reasoned order. Petitioners are named in the FIR and there is direct and specific allegations against them that they conjointly assaulted the injured resulting into his grievous injury.

¶17

I do not find any merit in the instant Cr. M. P. and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )

¶19

Sandeep/

¶20

Uploaded.

Meera Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Kabadi Shankarasa Clothing Company Represented By Its Gpa Holder R K Mishra Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Kanhaiya Lal Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jugeshwar Upadhyay Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jawed Ashraf And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Durgesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Saboo Sodium Chloro Limited Represented through Its Director Sanjay Sarna Vs the State of Jharkhand