Jharkhand High Court Weekly Roundup: July 22 - July 28, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 117-124]

TATA Capital Housing Finance Limited V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 117

Arun Kumar Thakur V. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 118

Rengha Oraon @ Regha Oraon V. State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 119

Chhotu Kalindi V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 120

Ajit Barla V. State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 121

Saryu Roy V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 122

Roshan Hazam @ Roshan Baraik V. The State of Jharkhand 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 123

PCIT Versus Tripta Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 124

Judgements/Orders This Week

SARFAESI ACT | District Magistrate Not Adjudicating Authority, Must Assist Secured Creditors In Asset Possession: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: TATA Capital Housing Finance Limited V. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 117

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that it is the duty of the District Magistrate to assist secured creditors in taking possession of secured assets under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The court clarified that the District Magistrate is not the adjudicating authority under this Act.

Justice Ananda Sen observed, “It is the duty of the District Magistrate to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured assets. The timeframe has been mentioned which is 30 days. Any delay at the instance of the District Magistrate will frustrate the provision of this Act. Further, the District Magistrate is not the Adjudicating Authority under the aforesaid Act. His duty is only to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the property i.e. giving assistance so that the possession can be taken peacefully and if someone obstructs, appropriate action can be taken against him.”

Discretionary Power To Summon Witnesses U/S 311 Cr.P.C. Must Be Exercised Judiciously, With Strong Reasons And Caution: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Arun Kumar Thakur V. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 118

The Jharkhand High Court has affirmed the discretionary power of courts under Section 311 Cr.P.C., emphasising its role in uncovering the truth while underscoring the need for its judicious exercise.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi noted, “Section 311 Cr.P.C. is one of many such provisions which strengthens the arms of the Court in its efforts to unearth the truth by procedural sanction by law. At the same time, the discretionary power vested under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reason and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice.”

'Subsistence Of Valid Marriage Is Prerequisite For Passing Maintenance Orders U/S 125 Cr.P.C': Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Rengha Oraon @ Regha Oraon V. State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 119

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that a valid marriage is a prerequisite for issuing orders under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

The court set aside a maintenance order issued under Section 125, emphasising that the petitioner's second marriage lacked legal sanctity unless he was validly divorced from his first wife.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, who presided over the case, stated, “Subsistence of a valid marriage is prerequisite for passing any order under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Applicant (AW-3) has herself admitted that Petitioner was having wife and children. It has been deposed by her in para 3 that his first wife was living separately with husband and she is the second wife.”

To Attract Applicability Of Section 324 IPC, Voluntary Hurt Must Be Caused By 'Dangerous' Instrument Which Can Cause Death: Jharkhand High Court

Case Title: Chhotu Kalindi V. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 120

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that to attract Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), voluntary hurt must be caused by instruments of shooting, stabbing, or cutting. The court noted that the use of such instruments can definitely cause death.

Justices Ananda Sen and Subhash Chand observed, “Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. ... To attract Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, a voluntary hurt should be caused by an instrument of shooting and stabbing or cutting. Definitely use of the said instrument can cause death.”

When Eyewitness Testimony Is Credible, Proving Motive Behind Offense Is Not Necessary: Jharkhand High Court

Case title: Ajit Barla V. State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 121

The Jharkhand High Court has held that when there is an eyewitness who has seen the commission of murder and their evidence is credible, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive behind the offence.

“When there is eye witness, who had seen the commission of murder and their evidence is credible, it is not necessary that the prosecution has to prove the motive behind the offence,” observed the division bench comprising Justices Ananda Sen and Subhash Chand.

Approaching HC Under Article 226 To Report Cognizable Offence Is Not Appropriate Remedy, Petitioner Must First Register FIR Or File Complaint: Jharkhand HC

Case Title: Saryu Roy V. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 122

The Jharkhand High Court has held that if a cognizable offence has been committed and the petitioner feels that a First Information Report (FIR) needs to be registered, he can be the informant and get an FIR registered at the police station or file a complaint before a competent court.

The Court emphasized that there are ample provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure to address such situations, and approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India initially is not the appropriate remedy.

Mere Pendency Of Title Suit No Grounds For Discharge From Offense Of Theft Without Establishing Possession, Malicious Intent Of Complainant: Jharkhand HC

Case Title: Roshan Hazam @ Roshan Baraik V. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 123

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the mere pendency of a title suit does not justify discharging an individual from a theft offense unless a competent court has ruled that the accused was in possession and that the case was lodged maliciously by the informant.

Justice Gautam Kumar Chaoudhary observed, “Having considered the submissions, this Court is of the view that mere pendency of a title suit cannot be a ground for claiming discharge from the for offence of theft, unless and until there is an order of competent Court that it was the accused who was in possession, and informant had lodged the case maliciously as such no relief can be granted at the stage of discharge. Plea of title and/or possession in defence can be considered during trial and not at the time of framing of charge”

Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Dept's Appeals For Not Filing Delay Condonation Application Along With Appeal Memo

Case Title: PCIT Versus Tripta Sharma

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 124

The Jharkhand High Court, while dismissing the appeal filed by the department, held that a delayed condonation application not filed with an appeal memo and subsequent filing cannot cure defects.

The bench of Chief Justice B.R. Sarangi and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad has observed that time and again if the appeal memo does not contain an application of delay condonation and was not filed at the time of filing of the same, then even subsequent filing of the application for condonation of delay cannot cure the defect. As such, the delay condonation application having not been filed till date in spite of the opportunity given, the delay cannot be condoned as the appeals are grossly barred by limitation.

Other Developments

Jharkhand Judicial Academy Hosts State-Level Conference On 'Judicial Ethics: Conduct Inside And Outside Of Court'

The Judicial Academy, Jharkhand successfully conducted a State Level Conference on “Judicial Ethics: Conduct Inside and Outside of Court” on 20th July, 2024 at Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Auditorium.

Justice Abhay S. Oka, Judge, Supreme Court of India, attended as the chief guest, while Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Acting Chief Justice, High Court of Jharkhand-cum-Executive Chairman, JHALSA, Ranchi, was the Guest of Honour.