Dipankar Das vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2325 Jhar

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr. M.P. No. 966 of 2021
             Dipankar Das, aged about 50 years, son of Ashwini Das, resident of Village
             Chandabariya, P.O. & P.S. Marishada, District- East Midnapore, West Bengal
                                                                    ... Petitioner
                                        -Versus-
             The State of Jharkhand                                 ... Opposite Party
                                            -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.

-----

04/13.07.2021. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the opposite party-State.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been heard through Video

Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account

the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have

complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent

this matter has been heard.

The petitioner has filed this criminal miscellaneous petition for

quashing the order dated 08.12.2020, whereby, warrant of arrest has been

issued against the petitioner and also for quashing the order dated

26.02.2021 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Ghatshila in connection with Chakulia P.S. Case No. 44 of 2015,

corresponding to G.R. Case No. 406 of 2015, whereby, process under

Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner.

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

without following the provision prescribed under Section 73 of the Cr.P.C,

the impugned orders have been issued. He further submits that judicial

mind in issuing the order dated 26.02.2021 is not reflected as no date and

time was fixed vide order dated 26.02.2021, which is against the mandate

of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @

Rustam & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand , reported in 2020 (2) JLJR

712.

Learned counsel for the State tries to justify the orders passed by the

court below.

On perusal of the order dated 08.12.2020, it appears that the

parameters of Section 73 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed and thereafter

order dated 26.02.2021 has been passed. The order dated 26.02.2021 itself

indicates that the warrant of arrest has been returned. There is no

execution of the said warrant upon the petitioner. The parameters of Section

82 of Cr.P.C. has not been complied with in issuing the order dated

26.02.2021. It is also in violation of the guidelines made by this Court in the

case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam (supra). The impugned orders cannot

sustain in the eyes of law.

Accordingly, the order dated 08.12.2020 and the order dated

26.02.2021 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Ghatshila in connection with Chakulia P.S. Case No. 44 of 2015,

corresponding to G.R. Case No. 406 of 2015 are quashed.

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and

disposed of. The learned court below is at liberty to proceed in terms of the

Cr.P.C. and the judgment as stated above.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/