Ishwar Singh @ Sardar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4891 Jhar

                                        1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr.M.P. No. 1950 of 2021

   Ishwar Singh @ Sardar, aged about 36 years, son of Gauri Singh,
   resident of village Sopo, Luru, P.O. and P.S. Raidih, District-Gumla,
   Jharkhand                                     ...... Petitioner
                        Versus
                        ...............

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

 CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                      ---------

 For the Petitioner   : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
 For the State        : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.

 6/Dated: 16/12/2021

Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for the State.

2. I.A. No. 6269 of 2021 has been filed for making amendment in

prayer portion of the main application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of

this petition, order dated 26.08.2021 has been passed whereby proclamation

under section 83 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner,

that is why it was necessitated to file this interlocutory application.

4. Learned counsel for the State has got no serious objection, if the

said interlocutory application is allowed.

5. Considering the fact that during pendency of this petition, the

aforesaid order has been passed, in the interest of justice to avoid multiplicity of

litigation, prayer made in I.A. is allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to make out

necessary correction in the main petition during course of day.

7. I.A. No. 6269 of 2021 stands allowed and disposed of.

8. The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated

09.04.2019, 26.06.2021 and 26.08.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Khunti in connection with Khunti (AHTU) P.S. Case No. 04/2017,

corresponding to G.R. Case No. 341/2017, whereby warrant of arrest, process

under sections 82 Cr.P.C. and process under section 83 Cr.P.C. respectively have

been issued against the petitioner.

9. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the petitioner draws the

attention of the Court to the order dated 09.04.2019 and submits that only on

the petition filed by the I.O., warrant of arrest has been issued against the

petitioner. He submits that earlier petitioner has not been served any summon

in terms of provision of Cr.P.C. He further submits that order dated 26.06.2021

whereby proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued is non-

speaking order which is against the mandate of law. He submits that the

subsequent order dated 26.08.2021 is not surviving. He submits that process

of 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued 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.

10. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for the State submits that

there is no illegality in the impugned orders.

11. The Court has perused the impugned order dated 09.04.2019

whereby warrant of arrest has been issued only on the basis of petition filed

by the I.O. There is no mention of earlier execution of summon. The order

dated 26.06.2021 whereby process of 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. There is no mention of time, date and place which is

mandatory under the provision of 82 Cr.P.C. As order dated 26.06.2021

whereby process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued is not in accordance

with law, subsequent order dated 26.08.201 is not surviving.

12. Accordingly, impugned orders dated 09.04.2019, 26.06.2021 and

26.08.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti in connection

with Khunti (AHTU) P.S. Case No. 04/2017, corresponding to G.R. Case No.

341/2017, whereby warrant of arrest, process under sections 82 Cr.P.C. and

process under section 83 Cr.P.C. respectively have been issued against the

petitioner, are hereby quashed.

13. The matter is remitted back to the court of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Khunti to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

14. 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/