Abdul Sattar Aged About 28 Years ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2349 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       Cr.M.P. No.14 of 2021
       Abdul Sattar aged about 28 years old, son of Abdul Samad, resident of ES/61 B &
       C near Bania Sole, Adra, P.O. Adra, P.S. Adra, District Purulia, West Bengal
                                            ....   .... ....       Petitioner
                                         Versus
       1. The State of Jharkhand
       2. Aaliya Hasan, aged 29 years old, wife of Abdul Sattar and daughter of Nausad
          Hasan, resident of Dangalpara, Ward No.1, Hizla Road, P.O. Dumka, P.S Dumka,
          District Dumka (Jharkhand)         ....  .... ....     Opposite Parties

        CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

        For the Petitioner         : Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate
        For the State              : Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P.
        For the O.P. No.2          : Mr. Haider Ali, Advocate
                                           ------

05/14.07.2021 Heard Mr. Shadab Eqbal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suraj Verma, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. Haider Ali, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

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.

By order dated 09.02.2021, Form IV Cr.P.C. issued in terms of order dated 02.12.2020 passed by C.J.M., Dumka in connection with Dumka (T) P.S. Case No.253 of 2020 was called which is on record. In Form IV, there is no description of time and place as described in the case of Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. Vrs. State of Jharkhand in Cr.M.P No. 2722 of 2019. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the judgment in the case of Arbind Singh @ Arvind Singh passed in Cr.M.P. No.1802 of 2018 vide order dated 15.06.2020 submits that in the said order process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been quashed.

Mr. Suraj Verma, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. Haider Ali, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 tried to justify the impugned order.

In view of the fact that in Form IV, date, time and place of appearance as held in the case of Rustum Alam (supra), is not reflected in the impugned order, the same will not sustain in the eye of law.

Accordingly, impugned order dated 02.12.2020 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka in connection with Dumka (T) P.S. Case No.253 of 2020, is hereby quashed.

This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Anit