Karan Kumar Das vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2960 Jhar

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                    ----

Cr.M.P. No. 222 of 2021

----

Karan Kumar Das, aged about 23 years, s/o late Sanjay Das, r/o Village- Sarojnagar, PO and PS-Chandwa, District-Latehar, Jharkhand ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Sardhu Mahto, APP

----

5/17.08.2021 Heard Mr. Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sardhu Mahto, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

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.

The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of the order dated 04.01.2021 whereby process under section 82 Cr.P.C has been directed to be issued upon the petitioner.

At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to section 82 Cr.P.C and submits that there is no satisfaction recorded in the impugned order by the learned court. He submits that there is condition precedent prescribed under section 82 Cr.P.C and that has not been followed which is against the mandate of law as well as the guidelines rendered in the case of "Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam and Others v. The State of Jharkhand", reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712.

Mr. Sardhu Mahto, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the learned trial court after going through the record has passed the order.

On perusal of the impugned order dated 04.01.2021, it transpires that there is no mention of execution of earlier steps with regard to summons and NBW in the order. The time and place and date are not indicated in the said order which is a condition precedent for passing such order in the light of Form IV Cr.P.C as per the guidelines issued by this Court in the case of "Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam and

Others v. The State of Jharkhand" (supra).

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.01.2021 is quashed.

The matter is remitted back to the concerned court to proceed afresh strictly in terms of Cr.P.C and as per the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of "Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam and Others v. The State of Jharkhand".

The instant petition [Cr.M.P.No.222 of 2021] stands disposed of.

I.A. if any also stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) SI/,