Disposed¶15

Gulam Gous Alias Gula Goush Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Feb 2025Cr.M.P./3433/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC, Cr. M. P. No. 3433 of 2021 (decided 05.02.2025, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava J.): quashing of cognizance order refused; Magistrate held to have applied judicial mind and passed reasoned cognizance order on police report in case under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 341 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act; mediation settlement between spouses left to be pursued before Trial Court; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The learned Magistrate properly applied his mind to the materials collected during investigation and passed a reasoned order for taking cognizance. ¶14

Gulam Gous Alias Gula Goush Ansari Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 3433 of 2021

¶2

Gulam Gous @ Gulam Goush @ Gumal Gaus Ansari, aged about 32 years, S/O Yunush Majahari, R/O Village – Sayal, PO- Bhurkunda, PS- Patratu, District – Ramgarh. ….. Petitioner Versus

¶3

1. The State of Jharkhand.

¶4

2. Yashmin Praween, W/O Gulam Gous and D/O Md. Israil Ansari, R/O Village – Soundadih, PO- Bhurkunda, PS – Patratu, District – Ramgarh. ….. Opp. Parties

¶5

---------

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶7

-------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. P-State : Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, SPP For the Opp. No. 2 : Mr. Zaid Ahmad, APP ---------

¶8

Order No. 11/Dated: 05^th February, 2025

¶9

1. Petitioner is praying for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranugarh, by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner in connection with Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 37 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No. 368 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶10

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of taking cognizance is sketchy and based on non-application of judicial mind and only in the blank column, the word cognizance has been put with a pen by the concerned Magistrate. He has also placed reliance on an order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. M. P. No. 92 of 2018 dated 03.04.2024 , wherein the order passed by the concerned Magistrate in the same manner, was quashed. Therefore, he prayed that this petition may be allowed by quashing entire cognizance order and the case may be remitted back for passing fresh cognizance order. It is also submitted that

¶11

Page | 1

¶12

the informant was called upon before the Mediation Centre for settlement of the dispute and the mediation was successful. It was settled that both the parties shall withdraw pending cases against each other. In spite of that, no effective steps thereafter have been taken by the Opp. Parties No. 2.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the Opp. Parties No. 2 Mr. Zaid Ahmad has opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that first para of the case is based upon the charge-sheet submitted by the Police, therefore, cognizance has been filled by pen but the later part of the order clearly indicates that the concerned Magistrate has applied judicial mind towards FIR and materials collected during investigation and also held in with para-wise discussion and passed the explicit order, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order and the citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not apply in this case.

¶14

4. It appears that the learned concerned Court of Magistrate has properly applied its mind towards the materials collected during investigation and passed a reasoned order for taking cognizance. So far as the matter of settlement between the parties before the Mediation Centre is concerned, petitioner is directed to take proper recourse before the concerned Trial Court.

¶15

5. In view of the above facts and reasons, this Cr. M. P. is disposed of.

¶16

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶17

Aditi/-

¶18

Page | 2

Gulam Gous Alias Gula Goush Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulam Gous Alias Gula Goush Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Jyoti Priya Alias Jyoti Priya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sharwan Kumar Saw Alias Sharvan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Avinash Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Khursheed Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar Singh Alias Ashok Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Factory Inspector