Quashed

Gajadhar Sahu and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC15 Jan 2024Cr.M.P./1888/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed the impugned order dated 24.08.2012 taking cognizance in a complaint case because it was mechanically passed without applying the judicial mind. The matter was remitted to the concerned court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 24.08.2012 set aside and matter remitted to the Court concerned to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

Gajadhar Sahu and Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr. — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr.M.P. No. 1888 of 2013

¶4

Gajadhar Sahu

¶5

Kishun Sao

¶6

Karu Yadav @ Kauleshwar Yadav

¶7

…… Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Jharkhand & Anr.

¶10

…… Opp. Parties

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶12

---------

¶13

For the Petitioners : Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the State :Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Advocate

¶14

11/Dated: 15/01/2024

¶15

Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, learned counsel for the State.

¶16

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case being G. Case 250/2012 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. Further by I.A. No. 8312 of 2013 cognizance order dated 24.08.2012 was challenged which was allowed by order dated 04.02.2016 and thus cognizance order is also under challenge.

¶17

Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no notification after 1953 and in absence of fresh notification case has been filed under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. He submits that even order taking cognizance is not in accordance with law.

¶18

Mr. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 submits that the learned court looking into the document has been pleased to take cognizance. He submits that O.P. No.2 has unnecessarily been arrayed as O.P. No.2 in this case. He submits that in the capacity of Forester he has filed the case. He submits that the State is competent to represent the case of the O.P. No.2. He submits that no interference is required by this Court.

¶19

¶20

Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned counsel for the State submits that looking into the document the learned court has taken cognizance.

¶21

The court has perused the order taking cognizance dated 24.08.2012 and finds that the word ‘cognizance, sections and transferee court’ have been filled up in blank space which suggests that mechanically the said order has been passed without applying the judicial mind.

¶22

In view of above, the impugned order dated 24.08.2012 passed in Complaint Case being G.Case No. 250 of 2012 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court concerned to pass afresh order in accordance with law.

¶23

This petition stands disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.

¶24

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶25

Satyarthi/

Gajadhar Sahu and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajadhar Sahu and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tokan Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Akhileshwar Diwedi And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Akash Agarwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Minor Megha Sahu Alias Gungun Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Ravinder Kumar Mittal Alias Ravi Mittal Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Sarwan Mittal and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.