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. 1038 of 2019
with
I.A. No. 8471 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. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
------
06/ 16.08.2021 Heard Mr. Rahul Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Pandey, 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 31.07.2014, 02.09.2014, 17.12.2014,
25.02.2015, 14.05.2018 and 26.07.2018, passed in Torpa (Tapkara) P.S.
Case No. 50 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 266 of 2014, 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 31.7.2014, without having any execution report of the
summon. Learned counsel further submits that process under Section 82
Cr.P.C. has been issued by order dated 02.09.2014 and thereafter process
under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has also been issued by order dated 17.12.2014
and the chargesheet has been submitted in this case showing the petitioner
absconder. He further submits that the permanent warrant of arrest has
been issued against the petitioner vide order dated 14.05.2018 and vide
order dated 26.07.2018, the record was disposed of.
5. Mr. Jitendra Pandey, 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 31.7.2014, 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, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued 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 17.12.2014, process under Section 83
Cr.P.C. has been issued and by order dated 14.05.2018 permanent warrant
of arrest has been issued against the petitioner and finally by order dated
26.7.2018, the record was disposed of under Section 299 Cr.P.C.
7. Since the petitioner was not served upon any summon and
prima facie, the order dated 02.9.2014, whereby process under Section 82
Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner 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 31.07.2014,
02.09.2014, 17.12.2014, 25.02.2015, 14.05.2018 and 26.07.2018, passed
in Torpa (Tapkara) P.S. Case No. 50 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No.
266 of 2014, 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/-
