Jharkhand High Court
Md. Naushad Ali vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1345 of 2021
------
1. Md. Naushad Ali, aged about 42 years
2. Md. Zuber Alam, aged about 45 years
Both sons of Yunus Master, resident of Kalyan Prasad Gali, Purana Thana,
Ward No.62, P.O. and P.S. Dumraon, District Buxar (Bihar)
.... .... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioners : Ms. Alka Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, A.P.P.
------
02/27.07.2021 Heard Ms. Alka Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.
Arup Kumar Dey, learned A.P.P. for the 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.
Petitioners have filed this petition for setting aside the orders dated
14.10.2016 by which N.B.W. has been issued against the petitioners and
orders dated 27.05.2017 and 06.03.2018 by which process under Section 82
Cr.P.C. has been issued and order dated 26.02.2021 by which process under
Section 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued.
Ms. Alka Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that without following the due process of law, impugned order has
been passed. She submits that by order dated 14.10.2016 N.B.W has been
issued against the petitioners. She submits that without verifying as to
whether earlier summons have been issued against the petitioners, this
order has been passed. By way of referring order dated 27.05.2017, she
submits that Form IV Cr.P.C. which is statutory provision, is not reflected in
the order. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in the
case of Rustam & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand reported in
2020(2) JLJR 712 at para 23. By way of referring order dated 06.03.2018,
she submits that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against
the petitioners. She submits that both the orders are bad in law in view of
judgment of this Court. She further submits that when first two orders are
bad in law, the order dated 26.02.2021 will also not sustain. On perusal of
order dated 14.10.2016, it transpires that N.B.W. has been issued against
the petitioner but there is no mention that earlier summons or bailable
warrant have been served or not, only on the petition of I.O., N.B.W. has
been issued against the petitioners. In order dated 27.05.2017, there is no
recording of appearance of date, time and place of occurrence in terms of
Form IV Cr.P.C. which is statutory in nature. On the request of I.O. again
process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioners on
06.03.2018. In both the orders, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has
not followed the mandatory requirements which is required for issuing
process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. By order dated 26.02.2021 process under
Section 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued. When the order dated 27.05.2017 and
06.03.2018 are bad in law, the order dated 26.02.2021 will not survive.
Accordingly, impugned orders dated 14.10.2016, 27.05.2017 and
06.03.2018 and order dated 26.02.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ranchi, are hereby, quashed.
The matter is remitted back to the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ranchi to proceed afresh strictly in terms of Cr.P.C. and the
parameters laid down by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @
Rustam (supra).
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Anit
