Jharkhand High Court
Muja Binder @ Muja Bind @ Birendra ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 1004 of 2021
Muja Binder @ Muja Bind @ Birendra Kumar Mahto @ Virendra Kumar @
Mujbindar @ Mujbind, aged about 30 years, son of Bhola Mahato, resident
of Village- Kathaiya, P.O. & P.S. Kathaiya, District- Muzaffarpur (Bihar)
... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mrs. Niki Sinha, Spl.P.P.
-----
04/04.08.2021. Heard Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mrs. Niki Sinha, 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.
Defects, pointed out by the office, are ignored.
The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the orders dated
22.01.2020 and 21.12.2020 arising out of M.G.M. P.S. Case No. 106/2018,
pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Jamshedpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated
20.08.2019, warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner and
thereafter the Investigation Officer had filed an application for issuance of
process under Section 82 Cr.P.C, which was allowed vide order dated
22.01.2020 and process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be
issued against the petitioner vide order dated 21.12.2020. He further
submits that there is no satisfaction of the learned court below in passing
the said orders, which is condition precedent in issuing any direction under
Section 82 Cr.P.C.
Mrs. Niki Sinha, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-State
tries to justify the impugned orders and submits that there is no illegality in
the impugned orders.
On perusal of the order dated 22.01.2020, it transpires that merely on
the application of the Investigating Officer, the learned court below has
issued process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. In the said order, there is no
indication of Form-IV of Cr.P.C., which is statutory in nature as has been
held by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam and
Others v. The State of Jharkhand , reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712. As
the order dated 22.01.2020 itself is not in accordance with law, the order
dated 21.12.2020 shall also not survive.
Accordingly, the orders dated 22.01.2020 and 21.12.2020 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class at Jamshedpur in connection with
M.G.M. P.S. Case No. 106/2018 are quashed. The matter is remitted back to
the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class at Jamshedpur to proceed
afresh in terms of the Cr.P.C. And the judgment delivered by this Court in
the case of Md. Rustum Alam (supra).
This criminal miscellaneous petition is, therefore, allowed and
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
