Jharkhand High Court
Kameshewar Prasad Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 572 of 2019
1. Kameshewar Prasad Singh, son of late Ram Briksh Singh, aged about
71 years, resident of village Dumari, P.O. & P.S. Dumari, District-
Giridih, Jharkhand
2. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, son of Sri Kameshewar Prasad Singh, aged
about 38 years, resident of village Ishri Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Dumari,
District- Giridih ... Petitioners
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ram Subhag Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Suraj Verma, Spl.P.P.
-----
04/22.10.2021. Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar along with Mr. Ram Subhag Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suraj Verma, learned Spl.P.P. for the
opposite party-State.
2. This petition has been taken through Video Conferencing in view of
the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due
to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any
technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been
heard.
3. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the order dated
30.01.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in
connection with Bagodar P.S. Case No. 231 of 2016, T.R. No.3149 of 2017.
By virtue of the aforesaid order cognizance has been taken for the offence
under section 279/379/414/34 of I.P.C., section 11(A)(D)(K) of Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1969, Section 47(A)(B)(C)/49/54/56(A)(B)(C) of
Transportation of Animal Rules, 1978 and Section 12 of the Bovine Act.
4. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
order is non-speaking. She further submits that nothing has been
mentioned as to what are the materials which necessitates issuing
summons to the petitioner. She in support of her contention refers to the
judgment of this Court passed in the case of Amresh Kr. Dhiraj & Ors. v.
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. reported in 2020 (1) JLJR 199. She
also submits that this matter is covered in view of the order passed by the
coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.06.2020 in Cr.M.P. No.573 of 2019.
5. Mr. Suraj Verma, learned Spl.P.P. appears for the State submits that
the counter affidavit has not been filed as yet in terms of the order dated
17.10.2019. On perusal of the said order, he fairly submits that this matter
is covered by the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in
Cr.M.P. No.573 of 2019.
6. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that though the court
below has mentioned that he has perused the charge sheet and found
prima facie material against the petitioner but what are the prima facie
materials to take cognizance and to summon the petitioner has not been
mentioned in the impugned order. In a mechanical manner, the impugned
order has been passed. Now considering the submissions of the petitioner
and the judgment cited above by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
I am inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the order dated
30.01.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in
connection with Bagodar P.S. Case No. 231 of 2016, T.R. No.3149 of 2017
is, hereby, quashed. The matter is remanded to the court below for passing
order afresh.
7. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
