1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 6 of 2022
Shankar Lal, aged about 51 years, son of Late Chait Ram, resident of Rajendra Nagar,
Near Kali Mandir, Ulidih, Madnabera, P.O. and P.S. Mango, District-East Singhbhum
...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opp. Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner
:Ms. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate
For the State :Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Advocate
............
02/Dated: 12/01/2022 Heard Ms. Shruti Shrestha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as defect nos. 9(i), 9(v), 9(vi) are concerned, a supplementary affidavit has been filed. She submits that so far as surviving defects are concerned, the same shall been removed by the second week of February, 2022.
4. If the defects are not removed within the aforesaid period, the office shall place the same before the Bench.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she will rectify the date of impugned order in para 1 and prayer portion during aforesaid period.
6. The present petition has been filed for quashing of orders dated 16.09.2021 and 16.11.2021 passed in in connection with Sonua P.S. Case No. 52 of 2019, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 46 of 2020 by learned S.D.J.M., Porahat, Chaibasa whereby office was directed to comply earlier order and to issue process under section 82 Cr.P.C. respectively against the petitioner, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Porahat, Chaibasa. 2
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 16.09.2021 process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued which was not complied and by order dated 16.11.2021 again direction was issued for complying earlier order. She submits that that earlier petitioner has filed Cr.M.P. No. 980/2020 before this Court challenging order dated 04.03.2020 by which process under section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the petitioner and the said Cr.M.P. was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the court concerned to pass a fresh order. She submits that the law laid down in the judgment passed by this Court in the case of "Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712 has not been followed in passing the impugned order. She submits that the petitioner was availing legal remedy by filing A.B.A. No. 1992 of 2020 before this Court and during pendency of this anticipatory bail application, process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued that is why the said anticipatory bail application has been withdrawn.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and inspite of withdrawal of anticipatory bail application, petitioner is not appearing before the Court below that it why impugned order has been passed.
9. On perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. was directed to be issued by order dated 16.09.2021 but the same was not complied and again by order dated 16.11.2021 direction was issued to comply the earlier. In the impugned order there is no indication of date, time and place. Again the same mistake has been done by the concerned Court
10. In view of aforesaid facts, the impugned orders dated 16.09.2021 and 16.11.2021 passed in in connection with Sonua P.S. Case No. 52 of 2019, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 46 of 2020 by learned S.D.J.M., Porahat, 3 Chaibasa whereby process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Porahat, Chaibasa, are quashed.
11. The matter is remitted back to the court of learned S.D.J.M., Porahat, Chaibasa to proceed afresh and pass order in accordance with law.
12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/