Jharkhand High Court
Mahesh Prasad Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 January, 2020
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No.2880 of 2019
----
1. Mahesh Prasad Yadav
2. Alki Devi
3. Brajesh Kumar
4. Mintu Kumari
5. Madhuri Kumari
6. Kavita Kumari
7. Laxmikant Kumar @ Pappu Kumar
8. Anjani Kumari
9. Riya Kumari
10. Ayodhya Prasad Yadav
11. Sunita Devi
12. Punam Kumari
13. Dipesh Kumar
14. Saryu Prasad Yadav
15. Rekha Devi
16. Rahul Kumar
17. Rukmani Kumari
18. Yogendra Prasad Yadav
19. Geeta Devi
20. Devendra Prasad Yadav
21. Munni Devi
22. Kunti Devi
23. Premni Devi
24. Punam Devi
25. Shiya Devi
26. Akshawa Devi ... Petitioners
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sunil Kumar ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Petitioners : Ms. Nivedita Kundu, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : None
----
3/ 14.01.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
A.P.P. for the State.
Petitioners have challenged the order dated 27.06.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Koderma in Complaint Case No.803 of 2018, by which summons have been issued after taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 427, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned is vague, does not reflect any satisfaction and is, in fact, a non-speaking order. He submits that what are the materials for taking the cognizance, -: 2 :- has not been reflected in the order impugned, which makes the impugned order bad.
Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer of the petitioner, but, after going through the orders 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 147, 148, 323, 427, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter the summons have been issued. What are the materials against the petitioners, which warrants issuance of summons, has not been mentioned in the order impugned. In most mechanical way, the composite order, i.e, order taking cognizance and the order issuing summons has been passed. This Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj and Others versus State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199 (Jhr.) has passed a detailed order discussing the provisions of Sections 190 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order impugned is not in consonance with the aforesaid order.
In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the order impugned dated 27.06.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.803 of 2018 is not in consonance with the provisions as laid down under Sections 190 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the order impugned is, hereby, quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court below to proceed further and pass order afresh in accordance with the provisions of law.
This criminal miscellaneous petition is, accordingly, allowed.
( Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03