Vikrant Kumar Singh @ Vikrant ... vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 5000 Jhar

                                     1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr.M.P. No. 3542 of 2022

   1.Vikrant Kumar Singh @ Vikrant Kumar
   2. Praveen Kumar                               ........Petitioners
                               Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr.            ......       Opposite Parties

      CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                           ---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Sudhir Kr. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.

..........

04/Dated: 09/12/2022 This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal

proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 22.12.2011 in connection

with Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 143/2007, corresponding to G.R. No. 1175 of

2007, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that chargehseet has been submitted thereafter learned court has

taken cognizance against five accused persons and one of the accused namely,

Abhinav Agrawal filed Cr.M.P. No. 965 of 2012 which was allowed by the co-

ordinate Bench of this court considering section 468 Cr.P.C. on the point of

limitation. He further submits that similar order may kindly be passed.

Learned counsel for the State submits that the Constitutional

Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not brought to the notice of

the co-ordinate Bench. She submits that order taking cognizance is well

speaking order.

In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the

parties the court has gone through the materials on record and finds that the

case of co-accused namely Abhinav Agrawal was quashed by the co-ordinate

Bench of this Court however, Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Sarah Mathew V. Institute of Cardio Vascular

Diseases & Ors. was not brought the knowledge before the co-ordinate

Bench. In that case it was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court when section

468 Cr.P.C. was applied. The court came to the conclusion that for the purpose

of computing the period of limitation under section 468 of the Cr.P.C. the

relevant date is the date of filing the complaint or the date of institution of the

prosecution and not the date on which Magistrate takes cognizance of the

offence. The point raised by Mr. Choudhary with regard to limitation is not fit to

be allowed. The Court has gone through the cognizance order and finds that the said

order is not speaking order. What are the materials against the petitioner is not

discussed in the order taking cognizance. For passing cognizance order, there is no

requirement to pass a detail order however, what are the prima facie materials against

the petitioner is required to be disclosed in the cognizance order, which is lacking in

the case in hand.

Accordingly, cognizance order dated 22.12.2011 passed in connection

with Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 143/2007, corresponding to G.R. No. 1175 of

2007, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, is hereby

quashed.

The matter is remitted back to the learned court concerned to pass

a fresh order in accordance with law.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Satyarthi/