The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition filed for quashing the order dated 20.6.2023 passed in Complaint Case whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to order for issuance of process under section 82 of the Cr.P.C., held that the orders issuing process under section 82 Cr.P.C. as also under section 83 Cr.P.C. were clearly contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Brief Facts:
Based on the complaint filed by the opposite party no.2 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, he is the Supervisor of Rohtas Transport Agency which looks after the booking of the vehicles inside the factory for loading and unloading work. It is stated that showing the fraudulent owner book of the truck, the petitioners, who were the driver and the conductor, got the material loaded on the truck and took Rs.18,740/ as rent for the same. Hence, a complaint was registered.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the entire order sheet of the Learned Trial Court of Complaint Case does not disclose the service of summon nor the execution of a bailable warrant or non-bailable warrant against the petitioners. He argued that that there being no service report of notice, the order under section 82 Cr.P.C. as also under section 83 Cr.P.C. should not have been passed and the same having been passed is illegal
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that summons were issued for the appearance of the petitioners and on the petitioners not appearing that the bailable warrants were issued followed by the non-bailable warrants.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that cognizance was taken in the case on 13.5.2016 under sections 406, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and summons were ordered to be issued for the appearance of the petitioners.
The Court observed that the learned trial Court proceeded in the matter without there being any service report of the summons or bailable warrant of arrest. The procedure adopted by the learned trial Court was of issuing non-bailable warrant, process under section 82 and thereafter under section 83 Cr.P.C. even without recording its reasons and satisfaction to the effect that the petitioners were deliberately avoiding service. The orders issuing process under section 82 Cr.P.C. as also under section 83 Cr.P.C. were clearly contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the petition, held that the order dated 20.6.2023 and the order issuing process against the petitioners are both hereby quashed.
Case Title: Ajeet Kumar v The State of Bihar & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarthy
Case No.: Criminal Misc. No. 66151 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Kumar Kaushik
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
