Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Ankur Ahmad @ Ankur Ahmed vs State Of Jharkhand on 9 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 3945 of 2019
1. Dr. Ankur Ahmad @ Ankur Ahmed
2. Payal Ahmad @ Payal Ahmed @ Payal Emran Momin
3. Akhtar Ahmad @ Akhtar Ahmed
4. Rehana Ahmad @ Rehana Akhtar Ahmed...............Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Nikhat Parween ........... Opp. Party(s)
......
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
Through:-Video Conferencing
......
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. V.K.Tiwary, APP
For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Deepak Singh, Advocate
......
5/09.03.2021 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.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for O.P.
No. 2 and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
In this application, the petitioners pray for quashing the order
dated 06.03.2017, by which cognizance of the offence punishable under
Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code, has been taken and, thereafter,
summon has been issued to the petitioners to appear.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the order passed by
this Court in the case of "Amresh Kumar Dhiraj & Ors.- versus- State of Jharkhand &
Anr., reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199" submits that the cognizance order is
absolutely vague and is a non-speaking order and does not reflect any
subjective satisfaction as to what are the materials to take cognizance
against this petitioners. He further submits that the composite order of
issuing summon is also vague and there is nothing against the petitioners
to issue summon. He submits that the non-speaking and unreasoned
order needs to be set aside.
Mr. Deepak Singh, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2
submits that there are sufficient materials on record to issue summon to
these petitioners. Thus, the court below has rightly issued summon to
them.
After hearing the parties and on going through the impugned
order, I find that the impugned order is absolutely cryptic and non-
speaking. I find that the court mentions that the case has been filed under
Section 498(A) I.P.C. The court further mentions that after 8-10 days of
the marriage, the accused persons started telling the complainant to fulfill
the demand. The Court took cognizance for the offence under Section
498(A) IPC and issued summon to the petitioners. What are the materials
to issue summon against the petitioner have not been mentioned in the
impugned order. Thus, the impugned order is not in consonance with the
order passed by this Court in the case of "Amresh Kumar Dhiraj & Ors. (supra).
In view of the aforesaid facts, This application is allowed. The
order dated 06.03.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is
remitted to the Court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with the
judgment passed by this Court in the case of "Amresh Kumar Dhiraj & Ors.
(supra)..
This criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed.
In view of the final disposal of the main petition, I.A. No. 4440 of
2020, filed for extension of the period of stay, is hereby disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J)
Mukund/-cp.3
