Jharkhand High Court
Hardeep Singh Bagga @ Hardeep vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 20 October, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 1037, 2021 (1) AJR 334
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No.1780 of 2020
----
Hardeep Singh Bagga @ Hardeep Singh @ Kaku ... Petitioner
-versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Petitioner : Ms. Renu Bala, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, A.P.P.
----
03/ 20.10.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for
the State through Video Conferencing. The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 11.00 a.m. They have no complain in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.
2. This case was listed/supposed to be listed before the Lawazima Board for passing an order in respect of the defects, pointed out by the Office.
3. Considering the pandemic situation where the Court has minimized the footfall of the lawyers and their Clerks in the Court, this Court felt proper to get all the cases listed before this Court so that the defects can be looked into at this stage only. Thus, this case is listed today before this Court directly.
4. The office has pointed out a defect in respect of shortage of Court Fees. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes that she will deposit the Court Fees within three weeks from today.
5. Undertaking given by the counsel for the petitioner is accepted. The Deficit Court Fee should be deposited within three weeks. Other defects, as pointed out by the office, stand ignored for the present.
6. The petitioner, in this criminal miscellaneous petition, has challenged the order dated 22.08.2019 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in Chhipadohar Police Station Case No.17 of 2018 (G.R. No.413 of 2018), by which after taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 379, 411 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 33, 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, the petitioner has been summoned.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is absolutely cryptic and non-speaking. She submits that the -: 2 :- Court below, while passing the impugned order has not mentioned anything as to what are the materials to issue summons to the petitioner.
8. After going through the order impugned, I find that the said order is a non-speaking one and does not reflect as to what are materials collected during investigation so as to summon the petitioner. The impugned order is absolutely cryptic and non speaking order. 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 issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and order taking cognizance. The impugned order is not in consonance with the aforesaid order.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the impugned order is prima facie bad, having been passed without recording any material which is against the petitioners so as to proceed against them. Since the impugned order is not in consonance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the law laid down in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj (supra), exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22.08.2019 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in Chhipadohar Police Station Case No. 17 of 2018 (G.R. No.413 of 2018). The matter is remanded to the Court below for proceeding afresh and passing order in accordance with the provisions of law after taking into consideration the materials on record.
10. This criminal miscellaneous petition is, accordingly, allowed.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03