Deepak Mohnani vs State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1150 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           Cr.M.P No. 382 of 2021
      Deepak Mohnani                                .... .... Petitioner(s).
                                 Versus
      State of Jharkhand                            .... .... Opposite Party(s)
                                 ------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

THROUGH : VIDEO CONFERENCING

------

FOR THE PETITIONER(S) : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate FOR THE STATE : Mr. Deepak Mohnani, Advocate

------

02/08.03.2021 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 complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) and the learned Counsel for the State.

3. By filing this application, petitioner has prayed to quash the order taking cognizance dated 15.01.2021 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in a most mechanical manner, learned SDJM, Jamshedpur has passed the order taking cognizance. He submits that in the entire order there is nothing to suggest as to what are the materials to proceed against the petitioner. He submits that how the offence under Sections 406, 409, 411,413,414, 420, 467,468,471/120B IPC & Section 7 of E.C Act is made out, is also not clear. He submits that from the facts of this case and also from the charge-sheet, there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner has committed any offence. He further refers to the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand &Anr., reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199(Jhr).

5. After hearing the parties and after going through the impugned order, I find that there is nothing to suggest as to what are the facts in the police papers to attract offence under Sections 467, 468 & 471 and other provisions of IPC & E.C Act.

There is also no whisper as to what are the materials to proceed against the petitioner. This Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj (supra) has laid down the law as to how the petitioner has to be summoned and what are the facts, the court has to consider while issuing summon to the petitioner. This Court held that in a most mechanical manner, a person cannot be summoned. Summoning a person cannot be done in a routine and mechanical manner.

6. Considering the impugned order dated 15.01.2021, which is cryptic and non-speaking and in view of the judgment passed by this court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj (supra), the order dated 15.01.2021 passed in G.R. No. 159 of 2021 arising out of Sakchi P.S. Case No. 166 of 2020 is set aside.

7. Accordingly, the instant petition stands allowed.

8. The matter is remitted back to the court concerned to pass order afresh in accordance with the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Amresh Kumar Dhiraj (supra).

(ANANDA SEN , J) anjali/ C.P 3