Jharkhand High Court
Dumari Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 822 of 2021
Dumari Devi, aged about 67 years, wife of Late Sahdeo Sao, R/o
Village Kosogendo Digdhi, P.O. Chatro, P.S. Deori, Chatro, District-
Giridih, Jharkhand ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Arjun Saw, aged about 65 years, S/o late Mahavir Saw, R/o Village
Bedodih, P.O. & P.S. Deori, District- Giridih, State- Jharkhand
... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, P.P.
-----
04/27.07.2021. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned 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 orders dated 22.02.2020, 01.06.2020 & 25.09.2020, whereby,
non-bailable warrant, process under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. respectively
have been issued against the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner by way of
drawing attention of the Court to the order dated 22.02.2020 submits that
the order has been passed in violation of paragraph 11 of the judgment
passed by this Court in Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. v. The
State of Jharkhand, reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712.. By way of
referring the order dated 01.06.2020, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the order has been passed without there being any report
relating to execution of the warrant of arrest. He further submits that there
is no mention of time and place of appearance . He also submits that in view
of the fact that the order dated 01.06.2020 itself is illegal, subsequent order
dated 25.09.2020, whereby, process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has been
issued, is also bad in law.
On perusal of the impugned orders dated 22.02.2020, 01.06.2020
and 25.09.2020, it transpires that in the order dated 22.02.2020, there is no
recording of satisfaction with regard to absconding by the petitioner. The
order dated 01.06.2020 has been passed without there being any report
relating to execution of the warrant of arrest. The order dated 01.06.2020
has been passed without following the procedure mentioned in Cr.P.C. and
the judgment passed in Md. Rustam Alam ( supra). In view of the fact that
the order dated 01.06.2020 itself is bad, the order dated 25.09.2020 will not
sustain.
Accordingly, the orders dated 22.02.2020, 01.06.2020 and 25.09.2020
passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Giridih in Deori P.S. Case No. 09/2019 are
quashed. The matter is remitted back to the court below to proceed afresh
in accordance with the Cr.P.C. and in terms of the judgment passed in Md.
Rustam Alam (supra).
Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
