Panchanan Maity vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 412 Jhar

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    Cr.M.P. No. 07 of 2021
                                          -------

            Panchanan Maity                                                   .... 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. Vikash Kumar, Advocate.
            For the State              : A.P.P.
                                                    ------
02/28.01.2021:            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 orders dated 20.01.2020 and 20.10.2020 by which, the learned SDJM, Ghatsila, has issued process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C against the petitioner in connection with Dhalbhumgarh P.S. Case No. 22/2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 235 of 2016.

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 orders impugned have 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.

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 processes under Sections 82 and 83 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 processes 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 20.01.2020 and 20.10.2020 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.)