Sandip Yadav @ Sandeep Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 2512 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Cr.M.P. No.766 of 2021

    Sandip Yadav @ Sandeep Kumar Yadav, aged about 25 years, son of Bajo
    Yadav @ Baiju Yadav @ Baijnath Mahto, resident of Village -Dundo, PO and
    PS- Bengabad, District-Giridih .... ....    ....     ... ... Petitioner

                                      -V E R S U S-

    The State of Jharkhand      ...     ...      ....     ...        ...   Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

For Petitioners : Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

4 /24.07.2021 Heard Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. This writ 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.

3. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 22.01.2021 whereby process under section 82 Cr.P.C has been issued against the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that guidelines as laid down by this Court in "Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam v. State of Jharkhand " reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712 has not been followed in passing the order. He submits that there is no execution report and inspite of that N.B.W against the petitioner has been issued and process under section 82 Cr.P.C has been issued.

5. By order dated 22.01.2021, it transpires that execution report of N.B.W is not on the record and the parameters laid down under section 82 Cr.P.C has not been followed. Moreover, the guidelines laid down by this Court in the case of "Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam" has also not been followed as the Form-IV Cr.P.C has not been reflected in the order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.01.2021 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the court below to proceed afresh strictly in terms of Cr. P.C and the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of "Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam"(supra).

6. The instant petition stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi,J.) SI/