Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1536 (JHR)

Anand Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-08-28

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahto, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This Interlocutory Application has been preferred by the petitioner for amending para-1 and prayer portion of the main application in view of the subsequent development by virtue of which process under Section 83 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been ordered to be issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate Jamshedpur vide order dated 10.08.2017 in connection with Mango P.S. Case No. 02 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 17 of 2017. 3. It appears that initially the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.06.2017 passed in connection with Mango P.S. Case No. 02 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 17 of 2017, by which proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., 1973 had been ordered to be issued. 4. Since the prayer made in the amendment application is subsequent to the prayer made in the original application and in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, this application is allowed. 5. Let I.A. No. 6860 of 2017 be treated as part of the main application. Cr.M.P. No. 2105 of 2017 6. This application is directed against the order dated 02.06.2017 passed in connection with Mango P.S. Case No. 02 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 17 of 2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur, whereby and where under proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been ordered to be issued. By virtue of amendment application having been allowed as contained in I.A. No. 6860 of 2017 the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.08.2017, whereby and where under process under Section 83 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been ordered to be issued. 7. It appears that none of the orders indicated subjective satisfaction on the part of the learned Magistrate as merely by recording the fact that the petitioner is named in the First Information Report the orders impugned have been passed. The reasons which have been assigned in the impugned orders are not germane for issuance of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., 1973 and process under Section 83 Cr.P.C., 1973 respectively against the petitioner. The reasons which have been assigned in the impugned orders are not germane for issuance of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., 1973 and process under Section 83 Cr.P.C., 1973 respectively against the petitioner. Therefore in absence of any cogent and justifiable reason, the impugned orders dated 02.06.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur and order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in connection with Mango P.S. Case No. 02 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 17 of 2017, are hereby, quashed and set aside. 8. This application is allowed. 9. However, the learned Magistrate is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. 10. Let this order be communicated through ''FAX'' to the learned trial court at the cost to be deposited by the petitioner.