Jharkhand High Court
Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Sah vs State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 26 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P No. 837 of 2013
1. Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Sah
2. Awadhesh Kumar Choudhary @ Awdesh Choudhiry .... .... Petitioner(s).
Versus
State of Jharkhand through Vigilance .... .... Opposite Party(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
THROUGH : VIDEO CONFERENCING
------
FOR THE PETITIONER(S) : Ms. R.S Mazumdar, Advocate
FOR THE STATE : Mr. Suraj Verma, Advocate
------
21/26.07.2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2011 by which the
learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi has taken cognizance for the offence
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 109, 201, 424, 477A IPC and Section
13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in connection with
Vigilance P.S. Case No. 6 of 2003 arising out of Special Case No. 7 of 2003.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that order taking cognizance dated
22.12.2011 is absolutely bad, cryptic and does not comply with the provision of
law. He submits that there is nothing in the impugned order to suggest as to what
is the criminal offence which the petitioners have committed to attract the
provision of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 109, 201, 424, 477A IPC and
Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submit that
petitioners were promoted by the D.S.E and there is allegation that the petitioners
were granted illegal promotion to the post of teachers as a result of which they
have obtained some financial benefits irregularly. He submits that in absence of
any basic ingredients no cognizance would have been taken nor the petitioners
could have been summoned in this case. By referring to the judgment of this
Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors,
reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199, he submits that the order is absolutely unreasonable,
cryptic and needs to be quashed.
Mr. Suraj Verma, counsel for the State submits that during investigation
several materials were found against the petitioners thus the court has taken
cognizance. He submits that sanction was also accorded against them.
After going through the impugned order, I find that simply on the ground
that charge-sheet was submitted, the court has taken cognizance. What are the
materials to attract the offence under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption
Act 1988 have not been mentioned in the aforesaid order. Further what are the
materials to summon the petitioners have also not been mentioned.
Considering the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Amresh
Kumar Dhiraj (Supra), I find that order impugned is cryptic, unreasonable and
needs to be quashed. Thus I find no hesitation to quash the summon order dated
22.12.2011. The matter is remanded to the court below to pass a fresh order on
the point of summoning if any material is at all there against the petitioners.
Accordingly, this application is allowed.
(ANANDA SEN , J)
anjali/ C.P 3
