Dipak Kumar @ Deepak Rao vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4932 Jhar

                                        1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr.M.P. No. 2067 of 2021

1. Dipak Kumar @ Deepak Rao, aged about 38 years, son of Ved Prakash
2. Meena Kumari, aged about 36 years, wife of Dipak Kumar
    Both residents of Qtr. No. Mq-76, Religara, P.O.-Religara, P.S. Banskudra, District-
    Hazaribagh
                                                            ...... Petitioners
                            Versus
                           ...............

1.The State of Jharkhand

2. Shri Krishna Pingua, son of late Surendra Pingua, resident of village Delgapara, P.O. and P.S. Majhgaon, District-West Singhbhum ...... Opposite Parties

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---------

For the Petitioners    : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
For the State          : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.


4/Dated: 20/12/2021

Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Priya

Shrestha, learned counsel for the State.

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

30.08.2017, 13.10.2017 and 14.12.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Dumka in connection with Complaint (P.C.R.) Case No. 318 of 2013

whereby process under sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C. and permanent warrant of arrest

respectively have been issued against the petitioners.

3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case

is arising out of 138 N.I. Act. He further submits that order dated 30.08.2017 by

which process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued, is not under parameter of

section 82 of the Cr.P.C 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. He further submits that the subsequent orders are

also not in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the

impugned orders.

5. The Court has perused the order dated 30.08.2017 by which process

under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued. It transpires that there is no satisfaction

recorded by the trial court. There is no indication of date, time and place in Form-IV

Cr.P.C. The order dated 30.08.2017 is a cryptic one. Further, it appears that there is no

compliance of provision held in the judgment of "Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam

(supra). As order dated 30.08.2017 is not in accordance with law, subsequent

orders are not surviving.

6. In view of the above facts, impugned orders dated 30.08.2017,

13.10.2017 and 14.12.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka

in connection with Complaint (P.C.R.) Case No. 318 of 2013 whereby process under

sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C. and permanent warrant of arrest respectively have been issued

against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.

7. The petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned court on

12.01.2022.

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/