Sushil Kumar Srivastava @ Sushil ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4832 Jhar

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  Cr.M.P. No. 2622 of 2021
             Sushil Kumar Srivastava @ Sushil Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 52 years,
             S/o Late Bal Krishna Prasad, R/o Manhortand, Sindri, P.O. & P.S. Sindri,
             District- Dhanbad                                    ... Petitioner
                                       -Versus-
             The State of Jharkhand                               ... Opposite Party
                                            -----

             CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                            -----
             For the Petitioner             : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate

For the Opposite Party-State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.

-----

04/15.12.2021. Heard Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. for the opposite party-State.

This petition has been taken 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.

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.09.2021

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Dhanbad in connection

with Rajganj P.S. Case No.15 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1274

of 2014 registered under Section 420/414/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code

whereby process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued

against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

earlier moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1042 of 2016 in which interim

protection was provided in favour of the petitioner vide order dated

15.12.2016. However in the second round, the matter was heard on merit

and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.08.2020.

He further submits that the petitioner has also filed A.B.A. No.7097 of 2020

before this Court. In the meantime, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has

been directed to be issued against the petitioner and that is why the said

A.B.A. was withdrawn by the petitioner. He also submits that this is not a

case where the petitioner is not appearing intentionally before the

concerned court. He further submits that paragraphs 22 and 23 of the

judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @

Rustam and Others v. The State of Jharkhand , reported in 2020 (2)

JLJR 712 has not been complied with by the concerned court. There is no

indication of date, time and appearance in the impugned order.

Learned Spl.P.P. for the State submits that there is no illegality in the

impugned order.

In view of the above facts and considering that the petitioner has

already moved before this Court in the aforesaid Cr.M.P. in which interim

protection was provided to the petitioner up to 18.08.2020, thereafter the

petitioner filed the aforesaid A.B.A. before this Court and in the meantime

the order dated 02.09.2021 has been passed whereby process under

Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner and

there is no indication of date and time, as held by this Court in the case of

Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam (supra) in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the

said judgment, the order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in connection with Rajganj P.S. Case No.15 of

2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1274 of 2014 is, hereby, quashed.

The matter is remitted back to the concerned court to proceed afresh,

in accordance with law.

Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/