Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 102 (JHR)

Nirmal Chandra Mahato v. State of Jharkhand

2020-01-17

ANANDA SEN

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By way of filing this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 27.2.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in G.R. NO. 1700 of 2015(S) (arising out of Harla P.S. Case No. 116 of 2015, whereby, the discharge petition, filed by the petitioners under Section 239 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that no reasons have been assigned in the order impugned as to why discharge petition has been rejected. He further submits that what are the materials to frame charge under Sections 323, 379 and 354 IPC have also not been mentioned in the order impugned, when it is the specific case of the petitioners that as per the case diary, Dy. S.P., Bokaro has found that there is no element to attract the provisions of Sections 323, 379 and 354 IPC against the petitioners. 4. After the hearing of the submissions of the counsel for the parties and after going through the record, I find that discharge petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. Chargesheet was submitted under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 120B/34 IPC and Sections 76/79 of the Chit Fund Act and Sections 4/5/6 of the Prize Chit and Money Circulation Scheme Act, 1978. The court took cognizance under Sections 420, 323, 354, 379 and 120B IPC. The discharge petition was filed, which was rejected by order dated 27.2.2019. 5. While going through the order impugned, I find that the court below has narrated the entire prosecution case as well as the oral submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. After referring two paragraphs, which are submissions of the A.P.P and the counsel for the petitioners, the court below has passed the following order; “After hearing submission of the both the parties in my opinion the accused petitioners are named accused. The charge-sheet filed against them. The cognizance under Section 420, 323, 354, 379, 120B of IPC taken against the accused persons. Therefore, the petition is rejected. Accordingly the petitioner is disposed of.” 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the order impugned is without any reason and without any basis. A judicial order must be a reasoned one. In absence of any reason, a judicial order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore, the petition is rejected. Accordingly the petitioner is disposed of.” 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the order impugned is without any reason and without any basis. A judicial order must be a reasoned one. In absence of any reason, a judicial order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Thus, I find that the order dated 27.2.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, is not in consonance with the provisions of law, thus, the order impugned is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The learned 8. Judicial Magistrate is directed to pass order afresh in accordance with the provisions of law.