Kuleshwar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2511 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      Cr.M.P. No. 533 of 2021
                                ------

         Kuleshwar Yadav                    ...  .... ....   Petitioner
                                     Versus
         The State of Jharkhand             ... ....  Opposite Party

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Spl. P.P.

04/24.07.2021 Surviving defects are ignored.

Heard Mr. Mohit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.

Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the State.

This 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 present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated

16.01.2021 whereby process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued

against the petitioner in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No. 164 of 2018,

corresponding to G.R. No. 642 of 2018, pending in the Court of learned

C.J.M, Gumla.

Mr. Mohit Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

without following the parameters as indicated under section 82 Cr.P.C,

process of 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued. He further submits that requirement

of Form-IV is not reflected in the order dated 16.01.2021. He submits that

process of 82 Cr.P.C. has not been issued in compliance of judgement

passed by this Court in the case of Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam & Ors.

V. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712.

Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the State tried to justify the

impugned order and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order

and process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has rightly been issued.

On perusal of impugned order dated 16.01.2021, it transpires that

there is no mention of execution of report of earlier bailable warrant, non-

bailable warrant etc. Further guidelines of Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam

(supra) has not been followed and the parameters of Section 82 Cr.P.C. has

not been complied.

In that view of the matter, impugned order dated 16.01.2021 is

quashed. The matter is remitted back to the court below to proceed afresh

in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the judgment passed by this

Court in the case of Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam (supra), in accordance

with law.

With the above observation and direction, this criminal

miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Satyarthi/-