Sri Ram Mishra v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.2637 of 2012 Sri Ram Mishra Versus The State of Jharkhand ----- .… … Petitioner … … Opp. Party CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD For the Petitioner For the Opp. Party ----- ----- : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate : APP 02/11.02.2013: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing State and on perusal of the record, it does appear that without there being any report, regarding execution of the warrant of arrest or any report regarding execution of the processes either under Section 82 or even under Section 83 Cr. P.C., an order has been passed on 20.10.2012 by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in Chirkunda (Maithon) P.S. Case No.181 of 1998, whereby, the petitioner was declared absconder and at the same time, permanent warrant of arrest has been ordered to be issued against the petitioner. In such situation, order dated 20.10.2012 certainly suffers from illegality and hence, it is set aside. Accordingly, this application stands allowed. However, the petitioner is directed to appear before the court below within two weeks from today, failing which it would be open for the court to take all the coercive action against the petitioner. (R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/
Legal Reasoning
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.2277 of 2012 Sunil Kumar Sinha Versus The State of Jharkhand ----- .… … Petitioner … … Opp. Party CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD For the Petitioner For the Opp. Party ----- ----- : Mr. J.S. Singh Advocate : APP 03/11.02.2013: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. One Meharma P.S. Case No.153 of 2002 was registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the other accused persons not against the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was made accused on the basis of the observation made in the supervision note. When the petitioner was made accused, he moved for bail and was granted anticipatory bail on 07.03.2003. Much thereafter, charge sheet was submitted on 31.11.2007, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken on 23.01.2008 and then on 01.03.2008, summon was ordered to be issued against the petitioner. Without there being any service report, warrant of arrest bailable was ordered to be issued on 23.06.2008 and then warrant of arrest non-bailable on 16.03.2009. Similarly, without there being any report, regarding execution of the warrant of arrest, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and then process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. were ordered to be issued vide order dated 12.05.2009 and 05.08.2009 respectively. On these facts stated above, get reflected from the charge sheet annexed with this application. Thus, it is evident that without there being any service report of summon, non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued and subsequently, without there being any report, regarding execution of the warrant, processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were ordered to be issued and, thereby, the court committed illegality. Accordingly, the order dated 16.03.2009, 12.05.2009 and 05.08.2009 are hereby, set, aside. Accordingly, this application stands allowed. However, the petitioner is directed to appear before the court below within three weeks from today, failing which it would be open for the court to take all the coercive action against the petitioner. (R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.2626 of 2012 Arjun Purty Versus The State of Jharkhand ----- .… … Petitioner … … Opp. Party CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD For the Petitioner For the Opp. Party ----- ----- : M/s R.S. Majumdar & Rajesh Kumar, : APP 02/11.02.2013: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. This application is directed against the order dated 12.06.2012 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ghatshila whereby and whereunder the court, having rejected the application filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C., cancelled the bail bond of the petitioner and consequently, an order has been passed for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is true that on 12.06.2012, the petitioner was directed to remain present physically before the court below, as on the same date, he had appeared in M.A. Examination and to this effect, an application had also been filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. for dispensation of his personal attendance, but the same was not only rejected, but simultaneously, an order was passed for cancellation of bail and issuance of warrant of arrest, which is quite illegal, in view of the decision rendered in the case of Sandeep Kumar Tekriwal vs. State of Bihar and ors. reported in (2009) East Cr. C. 233 (Patna). Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that when an application was filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C. for dispensation of personal attendance, stating therein that the petitioner has been appeared in M.A. Examination, but the court, having regard of that fact, passed an order for cancellation of bail bond and issuance of warrant of arrest and, therefore, the order dated 12.06.2012, certainly suffers from illegality. Accordingly, the order dated 12.06.2012 is, hereby, set aside.
Decision
In the result, this application stands allowed. Let a copy of this order be communicated through Fax at the cost of the petitioner. (R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.9 of 2013 1. Bishwanath Kahar 2. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Dom 3. Shyamji Dom 4 Raja Nat @ Rajua Nat Versus .… … Petitioners The State of Jharkhand & Anr. … … Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioners For the State ----- ----- : Mr. S.P. Sinha, Advocate : APP 02/11.02.2013: Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and taking into account the facts and circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for quashing of the order dated 26.09.2006 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 302/376 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. Notwithstanding the fact that the case has been dismissed, the petitioners would be at liberty to take all the pleas, which have been raised in this application, at an appropriate stage, i.e. the stage of discharge. (R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.933 of 2012 Md. Ishteyak Khan Versus .… … Petitioner The State of Jharkhand & Anr. … … Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- ----- For the Petitioners For the Opp. Party No.2 ----- : Mr. H.K. Habib, Advocate : APP 06/11.02.2013: Issue notice to the Opp. Party No.2 to show cause as to why not this application be admitted and/or if, possible be disposed of at the time of admission itself, for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D must be filed by Friday. Let this case be listed in anticipation of the appearance of the Opp. Party No.2. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.695 of 2010 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. (R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.2800 of 2012 Sunil Kumar Verma @ Sunil Kumar Vishwakarma .… … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. … … Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner For the State ----- ----- : Mr. Tejo Mistry, Advocate : APP 03/11.02.2013: Issue notice to the Opp. Party No.2 to show cause as to why not this application be admitted and/or if, possible be disposed of at the time of admission itself, for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D must be filed by Friday. Let this case be listed in anticipation of the appearance of the Opp. Party No.2. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.167 of 2011, G.R. No.6029 of 2011 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. (R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.2869 of 2012 Pradeep Kumar Agarwalla @ Agarwal .… … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. … … Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner For the State ----- ----- : Mr. J.K. Pasari, Advocate : APP 02/11.02.2013: Issue notice to the Opp. Party No.2 to show cause as to why not this application be admitted and/or if, possible be disposed of at the time of admission itself, for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D must be filed by Friday. Let this case be listed in anticipation of the appearance of the Opp. Party No.2 or on receipt of the service report. Until further orders, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case No.337 of 2012, G.R. No.3114 of 2012, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. (R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.5 of 2013 1. Salima Khatoon 2. Sagar Mansoori @ Mazhar Mansoori 3. Sunny Manssori @ Azhar Mansoori Versus .… … Petitioners The State of Jharkhand & Anr. … … Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioners For the State ----- ----- : Mr. Birendra Burman, Advocate : APP 02/11.02.2013: Issue notice to the Opp. Party No.2 to show cause as to why not this application be admitted and/or if, possible be disposed of at the time of admission itself, for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D must be filed by Friday. Let this case be listed in anticipation of the appearance of the Opp. Party No.2 or on receipt of the service report. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against these petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No.480 of 2012, pending in the court of S.S. Fatmi, learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-III, Koderma. (R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.937 of 2012 1. Mukesh Singh 2. Suresh Ram 3. Nikhal Agarwal Versus The State of Jharkhand ----- .… … Petitioners … … Opp. Party CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD For the Petitioners For the Opp. Party ----- ----- : Mr. J.S. Singh Advocate : APP 04/11.02.2013: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. Order dated 19.10.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, In-charge, Latehar in Balumath P.S. Case No.42 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No.353 of 2005 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 379, 411, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 33 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, Section 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals Act and also Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, as well as order dated 24.04.2012 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Latehear in Cr. Revision No.2 of 2011, affirming the order taking cognizance, is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the order taking cognizance is hit by the provision of Section 468 Cr.P.C., as the order taking cognizance is beyond the limitation. On perusal of the record, I do find that the offence was committed on 25.09.2005 and the cognizance of the offence was taken on 19.10.2009 after more than four years on the submission of the charge sheet, though first information report itself has been filed on 26.09.2005 and, therefore, relevant date would be 26.09.2005 for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation in terms of Section Section 468 Cr.P.C. and not the period of order taking cognizance, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty [(2007) 7 SCC 394] and also the order passed by this Court in a case of Upendra Pasi & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand [Cr. M.P. No.26 of 2012]. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. (R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.633 of 2011 Santosh Kumar Singh Versus .… … Petitioner The State of Jharkhand & Anr. … … Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioners For the State ----- ----- : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate : APP 03/11.02.2013: Issue notice to the Opp. Party No.2 to show cause as to why not this application be admitted and/or if, possible be disposed of at the time of admission itself, for which requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D must be filed by Friday. Let this case be listed in anticipation of the appearance of the Opp. Party No.2. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.417 of 2010 (T.R. No.1390 of 2011) pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh. (R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.833 of 2012 Trilok Singh Versus .… … Petitioner The State of Jharkhand & Anr. … … Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioners For the State ----- ----- : Mr. I. Sinha, Advocate : APP 02/11.02.2013: Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No.2 , I do not find any illegality with the orders dated 11.02.2010 and 27.04.2010 passed in C/1 Case No.96 of 2007 and Cr. Revision No.47 of 2010 respectively, whereby prayer made to summon the bank officials to face trial has been rejected, for the reason that it is the case of the complainant itself that when more members were included in the partnership business, the accused took signature of other partners so that the account be operated jointly but that documents were never submitted before the bank and, thereby the accused persons illegally withdrew the amount. When the bank has not been informed that the account is to be operated jointly, hardly there appears to be any culpability on the part of the officers and, thereby, the court has rightly rejected the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. (R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.2264 of 2012 1. Bidya Nand @ Bidhya Nand 2. Guna Dhar Santra 3. Prem Nath Sah 4. Rajesh Kumar 5. Ramshray Sharma Versus The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ----- .… … Petitioners … … Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD For the Petitioners For the State ----- ----- : M/s Ananda Sen & Tarun Kumar, Advocates : APP 02/11.02.2013: Let this case be listed along with Cr. M.P. No.2137 of 2012. Meanwhile, counter affidavit be filed on behalf of the State. Until further orders, further proceeding of Saraikella P.S. Case No.11 of 2005, G.R. No.149 of 2005, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella, shall remain stayed. (R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.2200 of 2012 Surendra Gupta Versus .… … Petitioner The State of Jharkhand & Anr. … … Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioners For the State ----- ----- : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate : APP 02/11.02.2013: In view of the provision as contained in Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is permitted to convert this application into a revision application. On conversion, let fresh stamp report be made so that it be placed for admission at the earliest preferably in the next week. (R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No.2616 of 2012 1. Dilip Kumar Sinha 2. Babita Sinha Versus .… … Petitioners The State of Jharkhand & Anr. … … Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioners For the State ----- ----- : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate : APP 04/11.02.2013: Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that before lodging the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the amount, which was due to be paid to the complainant, has already been paid to the complainant, which would be evident from Annexure-9 of the petition. In view of the submission, let notice be issued to the Opp. Party No.2, on filing requisites etc. under registered cover with A/D by Friday. Until further orders, further proceeding of Complaint Case No.157 of 2011, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla shall remain stayed. (R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/