Jharkhand High Court
Amit Amar Soren vs State Of Jharkhand .... .... Opposite ... on 17 January, 2020
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P No. 1334 of 2019
1. Amit Amar Soren
2. Damodar Dorai Guru @ Damodar Desai .... .... Petitioner(s).
Versus
State of Jharkhand .... .... Opposite Party(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
------
FOR THE PETITIONER(S) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate FOR THE STATE : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mishra, APP
------
05/17.01.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2018 by which, the learned CJM, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 295A IPC in connection with Sadar (Bara Bazar) P.S. Case No. 341(S) of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 1323 of 2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned is cryptic and non-speaking as well as there is non-application of mind. He further submits that requirement of Section 204 Cr.P.C has not been dealt with in the order impugned. He also submit that the court should have sufficiently satisfied itself before taking cognizance for the offence as alleged. He further submits that what are the materials for taking the cognizance, has not been reflected in the order impugned, which makes the impugned order defective.
Learned APP opposes the prayer of the petitioner but after going through the order impugned, he cannot justify the order impugned.
After going through the record and the order impugned, I find that the court below has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 295A IPC. What are the materials against the petitioners in the order impugned has not been mentioned. In most mechanical way, the impugned order has been passed. This Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors, reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199 has passed the detailed order discussing the provisions and requirement of order under Section 190 and 204 Cr.P.C. The impugned order is not in consonance with the aforesaid order.
-2-In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that order dated 04.06.2018 is not in consonance with the provisions as laid down, thus, order impugned is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
The learned court below is directed to pass order afresh in accordance with the provisions of law.
(ANANDA SEN , J) anjali/ C.P 3