Jharkhand High Court
Md. Firoz @ Bara Raja vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1039 of 2019
with
I.A. No. 8469 of 2019
Md. Firoz @ Bara Raja
@ Firoz Kuraishi ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P.
------
06/ 16.08.2021 Heard Mr. Rahul Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Suraj Verma, learned counsel appearing 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. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for
quashing of the orders dated 21.05.2014, 02.09.2014, 27.10.2014 and
24.01.2019, passed in Torpa (Tapkara) P.S. Case No. 70 of 2013
corresponding to G.R. No. 410 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khunti.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has not received any summon in this case and on the prayer for
the I.O., Non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the
petitioner on 21.05.2014, without having any execution report of the
summon. Learned counsel further submits that by order dated 02.09.2014
directly process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued without passing
any order under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 27.10.2014
cognizance has been taken against the petitioner, accepting the
chargesheet, showing the petitioner absconder. Learned counsel also
submits that 24.01.2019 permanent warrant of arrest has been issued
against the petitioner and the record was also disposed of on the same day.
5. Mr. Suraj Verma, learned counsel for the State tried to justify
the impugned orders and submits that there is no illegality in the
impugned orders.
6. On perusal of the order dated 21.05.2014, by which Non-
bailable warrant of arrest has been issued, it appears that there is no
mention of service of summon upon the petitioner. By order dated
02.9.2014, directly process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued
without issuing the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and on perusal of the
said order, it transpires that there is no satisfaction of the Court which is a
condition precedent for issuing process, as there is no mention of time,
place and the date, which is mandatory in terms of Form-IV Cr.P.C. By
order dated 24.01.2019 permanent warrant of arrest has been issued
against the petitioner and on the same day, the record was disposed of.
7. Since the petitioner was not served upon any summon and
prima facie, the order dated 02.9.2014, whereby directly process under
Section 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued without issuing the process under
Section 82 Cr.P.C, is bad in law and has not been issued in compliance of
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.
8. In that view of the matter, the orders dated 21.05.2014,
02.09.2014 and 24.01.2019, passed in Torpa (Tapkara) P.S. Case No. 70
of 2013 corresponding to G.R. No. 410 of 2013, pending in the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khunti, are hereby, quashed. The
matter is remitted back to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Khunti to proceed afresh in terms of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Md.
Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. (Supra).
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this criminal
miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. Pending interlocutory
application also stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
