Jharkhand High Court
Rajesh Yadav @ Rajesh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1717 of 2021
1. Rajesh Yadav @ Rajesh, aged about 28 years, son of Kartik Yadav
2. Jhanka Devi @ Jhanki Devi, aged about 38 years, wife of Mahadeo
Yadav
3. Mantu Yadav, aged about 24 years, son of Bansi Yadav
4. Mahadeo Yadav, aged about 37 years, son of Babun Yadav
5. Ramchandra Yadav, aged about 39 years, son of Sukar Yadav
6. Vanshi Yadav, aged about 53 years, son of Nando Yadav
7. Rupan Yadav @ Rupan, aged about 27 years, son of Vijay Yadav
All resident of Village Garaidih, P.O. Pathaldiha, P.S. Koderma, District-
Koderma ... Petitioners
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
-----
05/20.12.2021. Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel assisted by Mr. Arpit Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. for the
opposite party-State and Mr. Randhir Kumar, learned counsel for the
informant.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.09.2020
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with
Koderma P.S. Case No.43 of 2020, G.R. No.210 of 2020 whereby process
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the
petitioners, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Koderma.
3. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that vide order dated 29.09.2020, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
has been directed to be issued against the petitioners only on the ground
that the I.O. has filed an application for issuance of process under Section
82 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the petitioners had earlier moved before
this Court in A.B.A. No.5130 of 2020 and pursued the remedy under the
law. However, by the order dated 29.09.2020 process under Section 82
Cr.P.C. has already been directed to be issued against the petitioners, that is
why the said A.B.A. was withdrawn on 14.07.2021.
4. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-
State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. She further
submits that the petitioners were knowing about the case and they were
avoiding appearance.
5. Mr. Randhir Kumar, learned counsel for the informant has also
opposed the prayer and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned
order.
6. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that only on the
application of the I.O., the order dated 29.09.2020 has been passed. There
is no satisfaction, recorded by the learned court below in the impugned
order, which is required as per the parameters of Cr.P.C. for passing such
order. There is no indication of date and time in the impugned order, as held
by this Court in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgment in the case of Md.
Rustum Alam @ Rustam and Others v. The State of Jharkhand ,
reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712.
7. In view of the above facts and considering that the impugned order
has not been passed in terms of the order passed by this Court in the case
of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam (supra), the order dated 29.09.2020
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with
Koderma P.S. Case No.43 of 2020, G.R. No.210 of 2020, pending in the
court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma is, hereby, quashed.
The matter is remitted back to the concerned court to proceed afresh, in
accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
