Jharkhand High Court
Kishandeo Rai vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 December, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2252 of 2021
Kishandeo Rai, Son of Bhola Rai, aged about 50 years, residents of near
Laxmi Nagar field, P.O. and P.S. Telco, District-East Singhbhum at
Jamshedpur ...... Petitioner
Versus
...............
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
4/Dated: 01/12/2021
Heard Mr. Jitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel 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. The present petition has been filed for quashing of orders dated
24.08.2018, 05.02.2019 and 14.02.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in connection with Sakchi P.S.
Case No. 14 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 306 of 2012 whereby
N.B.W and process under sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. respectively have been issued
against the petitioner.
4. Mr. Jitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
by order dated 24.08.2018 non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued
against the petitioner. He submits that representation under section 317 Cr.P.C.
was filed on behalf of the petitioner but by way of rejecting that representation,
N.B.W. has been issued against the petitioner. He submits that process of 82
Cr.P.C. has been issued by order dated 05.02.2019 which is not in accordance
with law and not in compliance of judgment passed by this Court in the case of
"Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand ,
reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712.
5. Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the State submits that
there is no illegality in the impugned orders.
6. From perusal of impugned order dated 24.08.2018, it transpires
that representation under section 317 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the
petitioner and rejecting the said representation N.B.W. has been issued against
the petitioner. It transpires that petitioner was ready to appear and a
representation under section 317 Cr.P.C. was already filed on his behalf. Order
dated 05.02.2019 by which process of section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued is not
in accordance with law and not under the parameters of Md. Rustum Alam
@ Rustam (supra). There is no satisfaction recorded by the trial court while
issuing such order. As orders dated 24.08.2018 and 05.02.2019 are not in
accordance with law, order dated 14.02.2020 by which process of 83 Cr.P.C. has
been issued, is also not surviving.
7. In view of the above facts, orders dated 24.08.2018, 05.02.2019
and 14.02.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Singhbhum at
Jamshedpur in connection with Sakchi P.S. Case No. 14 of 2012,
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 306 of 2012 whereby N.B.W and process
under sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. respectively have been issued against the
petitioner, are hereby quashed.
8. The matter is remitted back to the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, East Singhbhum to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this criminal
miscellaneous petition is allowed and disposed of. I.A., if any, stands disposed
of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
