The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the learned Magistrate having once issued the bailable warrant of arrest, ought to have ensured that the execution report of such bailable warrant of arrest is received, before taking any further coercive action, like to issue non- bailable warrant of arrest.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner was on bail during the investigation and then, the chargesheet was filed. Thereafter, the summons was issued to the Petitioner, however, without the issuance of the service report of the summon, the court issued the bailable warrant of arrest against the Petitioner. Furthermore, even though the execution report of the bailable warrant of arrest was not issued, the learned magistrate issued the non bailable warrant against the Petitioner. After that, the learned magistrate without the issuance of the execution report of the non bailable warrant issued the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed in order to quash the criminal proceedings and the order by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 341 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, as well as the orders whereby and where under, the learned Magistrates have respectively issued the bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., order for attachment of the property of the petitioner under Section 83 Cr.P.C. and the order by which the petitioner has been declared absconder and permanent warrant of arrest has been issued under Section 299 Cr.P.C.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the learned magistrate ought not to have issued bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest, without the receiving of the execution report. It was furthermore submitted that in this case, the learned magistrate committed a grave error by declaring the petitioner absconder and issuing a permanent warrant of arrest without first proving to the court that the accused has fled and there is no immediate prospect of arresting him. This is because there is no evidence on record indicating that the petitioner has fled, and the learned magistrate did not follow the proper procedures when issuing the warrant. At last, it was submission that the compromise has been affected between the parties, hence the criminal proceedings should be quashed.
Contentions of the State
The State submitted that the orders passed by the learned magistrate declaring the petitioner to be an absconder itself shows that there were materials available on the record for the learned Magistrate to be satisfied that there is justification for issuance of such bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., passing order for attachment and declaring the petitioner; who is the accused person of the case concerned, to be an absconder.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that it is a well-established legal concept that the learned magistrate, upon issuing a bailable warrant of arrest, should have made sure to obtain the execution report of said warrant prior to pursuing any more coercive measures, such as issuing a non-bailable order of arrest.
It was furthermore observed that the court that issues a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is required by law to record its satisfaction that the accused, regarding whom the proclamation is made, is absconding or concealing in order to avoid being arrested. If the court decides to issue a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it must specify the petitioner's appearance time and place in the order that is used to issue the proclamation. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has neither recorded its satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest nor fixed any time or place for appearance of the petitioner.
The court noted that prior to exercising the authority granted by Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court must be satisfied that the accused has abscond and that there is no immediate prospect that he will be arrested. The court relied upon the judgment titled Nirmal Singh vs. State of Haryana.
The court also noted that both the offences are compoundable in nature and in case of compromise among the parties the parties are free to approach the court concerned by filing an appropriate application for compounding of the offences but since there is a specific provision for compounding of the offences involved in this case, this Court is not inclined to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in such a matter.
Based on these considerations, the court quashed the orders passed by the learned judicial magistrate and rejected the prayer for the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition.
Case title: Vishal Kumar V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 1422 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P.
Advocate for the State: Mr. Akchansh Kishore, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jharkhand_High_Court.jpg