Bhuneshwar Sao vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 323 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               Cr. M.P. No. 2702 of 2020
                                           ----

1. Bhuneshwar Sao

2. Bhutak Sao @ Matuk Sao

3. Kamal Sao @ Kamal Kumar Sao

4. Mahendra Sao

5. Kauleshwar Yadav

6. Sanju Rana @ Sanjay Rana @ Suju Rana

7. Hemraj Sao ... Petitioners

-versus-

           1. The State of Jharkhand
           2. Gira Devi                               ...  Opposite Party
                                           ----
                CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
                    THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
                                                ----

For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State: Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, G.A. V

----

2/ 21.01.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing 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. The petitioners, in this criminal miscellaneous petition, have challenged the order dated 07.02.2020, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge I cum Special Judge SC/ST Act, Hazaribagh in ST/SC Police Station Case No.26 of 2015 (G.R. No.4623 of 2015) corresponding to SC/ST Case No.18 of 2020, whereby cognizance of the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(iii)(iv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been taken and summons have been issued to the petitioners.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioners, relying upon the order/judgment passed by this Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj and Others versus State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199 (Jhr.), submits that the impugned order is absolutely non- speaking, bad and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

4. I have gone through the impugned order. 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 petitioners. 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.

5. 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 07.02.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge I cum Special Judge SC/ST Act, Hazaribagh in ST/SC Police Station Case No.26 of 2015 (G.R. No.4623 of 2015) corresponding to SC/ST Case No.18 of 2020. The matter is remanded to the Court below for proceeding afresh and passing order in accordance with the provisions of law and the order passed by this Court after taking into consideration the materials on record.

6. This criminal miscellaneous petition is, accordingly, allowed.

(Ananda Sen, J.) Kumar/Cp-03