Vishwajeet Mishra and Others vs The State of Jharkhand and Another

Harish Chandra Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 who has appeared through Advocate. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat, in G.R. No. 756 of 2010/T.R. No. 2008 of 2011, whereby, an application filed by the petitioners u/s 239 of the Cr.P.C., for discharge, has been rejected by the Court below.

The petitioners have been made accused in Petarbar/Tenughat P.S. Case No. 73 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 756 of 2010. The petitioners are the husband and the in-laws of the informant and there is allegation against them in the F.I.R., making out the offence under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It appears that after investigation, the police had submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners and the petitioners filed an application u/s 239 of the Cr.P.C., for discharge, which was rejected by the Court below.

It appears from the impugned order passed by the Court below that the Court below has only reproduced the allegations made in the F.I.R., and has rejected the application stating that there is sufficient evidence for framing charge against the petitioners and has fixed the date for framing the charge.

It is apparent from perusal of the impugned order that there is no discussion about the outcome of the investigation made by the police and the materials available in the case diary against the petitioners. Without discussing any material, the Court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioners for discharge. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely a non-speaking order. Though it is a detailed order, but except repeating the allegations in the FIR, there is no discussion about any material found against the petitioners during the investigation by the police,

Hence, the impugned order being an absolutely non-speaking order, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat, in G.R. No. 756 of 2010/T.R. No. 2008 of 2011, is hereby, set aside and the Court below is directed to pass the order afresh, discussing the materials available in the case diary against the petitioners. This application is accordingly, allowed. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, let this order be communicated to the Court concerned through FAX at the cost of the petitioners.