Amar Hembram @ Amarjit Hembram vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4930 Jhar

                                         1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr.M.P. No. 2731 of 2021

Amar Hembram @ Amarjit Hembram, aged about 28 years, son of Waneshwar
Hembram, resident of village-Kelahi, P.O. and P.S. Mihijam, District- Jamtara

                                         ......    Petitioner
                           Versus
                           ...............

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

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                       ---------
For the Petitioner     : Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, Advocate
For the State          : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P.


4/Dated: 20/12/2021

Heard Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Satish Prasad, learned counsel for the State.

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

12.12.2018 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jamtara in connection with Mihijam P.S.

Case No. 139 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No. 59 of 2019, S.T. Case No. 29/2019

whereby process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner,

pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jamtara.

3. Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that impugned order dated 12.12.2018 is not in accordance with law and the

parameter which is essential for passing such order has not been followed. He

further submits that process of 82 Cr.P.C. has not been issued 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.

4. Mr. Satish Prasad, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no

illegality in the impugned order.

5. From perusal of impugned order dated 12.12.2018, it transpires that

there is no satisfaction recorded by the concerned court which is one of the

parameter for passing such order. There is no indication of date, time and place in

Form-IV Cr.P.C. Further, it appears that there is no compliance of provision held in the

judgment of "Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam (supra)

6. In view of the above facts, order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the

learned S.D.J.M., Jamtara in connection with Mihijam P.S. Case No. 139 of 2018,

corresponding to G.R. No. 59 of 2019, S.T. Case No. 29/2019 whereby process under

section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner, is hereby quashed.

7. The matter is remitted back to the court of learned Additional Sessions

Judge-III, Jamtara to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

8. 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/