Allowed

Kumar Santosh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Jul 2023Cr.Rev./1462/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short oral order set aside a non-speaking impugned order where a lower court took cognizance under IPC Sections 420/34 instead of Section 138 N.I. Act, despite bounce of cheques. The High Court allowed the revision and remitted the case to the lower court for a fresh, speaking order within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.08.2018 set aside; case remitted to the lower court to pass a fresh speaking order within six weeks.

Kumar Santosh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 1462 of 2018

….

Kumar Santosh

…… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Shri I. K. Singh

¶9

Anamika Singh

¶10

Ajit Singh

¶11

Jayant Singh

¶12

Abbas Ali Rankeshwar

¶13

Shri Aghoreshwar Sai Development Pvt. Ltd.

¶14

Attis Kumar Tiwari

¶15

Vishal …… Opp. Partues

¶16

-----

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

¶18

-----

¶19

For the Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, A. P. P. For the O. P. Nos. 2 and 3: Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the O. P. Nos. 4 and 5: None. For the O. P. No. 6: Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed, Advocate For the O. P. Nos. 7 to 9 : Mr. Rohit Roy, Advocate

¶20

ORAL ORDER IN COURT

¶21

06/12.07.2023 The Criminal Revision No. 1462 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.08.2018 passed by Sri Nishit Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 1975 of 2017 whereby cognizance has been taken for the offence under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and not Section 138 of the N. I. Act.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. However, nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite party nos. 4 and 5.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the learned Court below has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 420/34

¶24

-2-

¶25

of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 138 of the N. I. Act and hence, the impugned order may be set aside and the learned Court below may be directed to pass the order accordingly.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required by the learned Court below.

¶27

Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 7 to 9 has submitted that certain payment has been made.

¶28

Learned counsels for the opposite party nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 have also supported the impugned order. 7. Perused the records of this case and considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the sides. 8. It transpires that opposite party nos. 7, 8 and 9 have issued cheques, which had bounced and which were presented on 20.03.2017 and the said cheques were returned unpaid vide Memo dated 21.03.2017 with a remark “Payment stopped by the drawer”. 9. It transpires that impugned order passed by the learned Court below is non-speaking and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

¶29

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 16.08.2018 passed by Sri Nishit Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 1975 of 2017 is set aside and the case is remitted back to Sri Nishit Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi or his Successor Court for passing a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

Thus, Criminal Revision No. 1462 of 2018 is allowed and remitted to the learned Court below.

¶31

Kamlesh/

¶32

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

Kumar Santosh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar Santosh 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

Lalita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Punit Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md.Aasu Vs State of Jharkhand

Sahadev Rai Vs State of Jharkhand

Lakhan Sharma And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Anita Sao Alias Anita Saw Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.