Jharkhand High Court
Hari Lal Mehta @ Hari Lal Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 11 of 2021
-------
Hari Lal Mehta @ Hari Lal Mahto .... Petitioner(s).
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opp. Party(s).
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
Through: Video Conferencing
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P.
------
02/25.01.2021: The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which
has been held through video conferencing today at 11:00 A.M. They have no
complaint in respect of the audio and video clarity and quality.
2. Heard the counsel for the parties.
3. By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing
the order dated 4.9.2018 by which, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-VIII,
Hazaribag has issued process under Section 82 Cr.P.C against the petitioner in
connection with Bishnugarh P.S. Case No. 77/2012, corresponding to G.R. No.
1871 of 2012 (Sessions Trial No. 369-A of 2015). Subsequently, by order dated
25.3.2019, the process under Section 83 Cr.P.C has been issued, which also
needs to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment/order
passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 (Md. Rustum Alam @
Rustam & Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand), submits that the order
impugned has been passed without application of mind. He further submits that
the procedure and requirements, which have been laid down in the section
should be strictly followed while issuing the process under Sections 82 and 83
Cr.P.C, but the same has not been followed and thus the orders impugned are
absolutely bad. He further submits that what are the materials against the
petitioner, which suggest that the petitioner was evading his arrest, has also not
been mentioned in the order impugned.
5. From perusal of order impugned, it appears that the court below has
not recorded subjective satisfaction in the orders impugned, which is necessary
for issuing the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. In most mechanical way and
without application of mind as well as without recording the subjective
satisfaction, the process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.,P.C has been issued
against the petitioner. This type of order, which is non-speaking and reflects non-
application of mind cannot be allowed to sustain in the eye of law. This Court
has dealt with the issue in detail in Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 (Md. Rustum Alam
@ Rustam & Others Vs. The State of Jharkhand) and held that while issuing
the process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C, the court has to apply his mind
and the procedure and requirements, which have been laid down in the section
should be strictly followed. The court below has not recorded any subjective
satisfaction, which makes the orders impugned bad in law.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that orders impugned dated
4.9.2018 and 25.3.2019 are not in consonance with the provision of law as well
as judgment passed by this Court. Thus, orders impugned are, hereby, quashed
and set aside.
7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
8. The learned court below is directed to pass order afresh in
accordance with the provisions of law.
Anu/C.P.-3 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
