Sahdeo Ravidas @ Sahadeb Das vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2655 Jhar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                Cr. M.P. No. 1057 of 2021
             Sahdeo Ravidas @ Sahadeb Das, aged about 35 years, son of Late Koli
             Ravidas, resident of Ratanpura, P.O. & P.S. Hirodih, District- Giridih
                                                                    ... Petitioner
                                         -Versus-
             The State of Jharkhand                                 ... Opposite Party
                                             -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.

-----

03/02.08.2021. Heard Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the opposite party-

State.

This criminal miscellaneous 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.

The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the orders dated

01.12.2020 and 12.01.2021, whereby, non-bailable warrant of arrest and

process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. respectively have been issued against the

petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any

error so far as the order of issuance of non-bailable warrant dated

01.12.2020. He submits that so far as process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. i.e.

the order dated 12.01.2021 is concerned, that order is bad in law as the

judgment passed by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @

Rustam & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand , reported in 2020 (2) JLJR

712 has not been followed. There is no indication of Form-IV of Cr.P.C.,

which is statutory, as directed by this Court in paragraph 23 of the said

judgment.

Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl. P.P. Appearing for the State submits

that while passing the order dated 12.01.2021, trial court has considered so

many judgments. There is no illegality in the impugned orders.

On perusal of the order dated 12.01.2021, whereby, process under

Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued, it transpires that there is no indication of

Form-IV of Cr.P.C., which is statutory in nature as per paragraph 23 of the

judgment passed by this Court in the case of Md. Rustam Alam (supra).

Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Ashok Singh @ Ashok

Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand , reported in 2015 (4) JBCJ 277

(H.C.). This judgment has been considered by the learned Special Judge,

POCSO Act, Giridih, but in spite of that there is no indication of Form-IV of

Cr.P.C. in the impugned order dated 12.01.2021.

Accordingly, the order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the learned

Special Judge, POCSO Act, Giridih in Hirodih P.S. Case No. 110/2020 is

quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Special Judge, POCSO Act,

Giridih to proceed afresh in terms of the provision under Section 82 Cr.P.C.

As well as the judgment passed by this Court in Md. Rustam Alam ( supra).

This criminal miscellaneous petition is, therefore, allowed in part and

disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/