Arif Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1894 Jhar

                                         1

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                          ----

Cr.M.P. 815 of 2021

----

Arif Khan, S/o Khalil Khan, aged about 41 years, residing at Mohalla-36 Mohalla, Nai Sarai, PO Ramgarh and PS Ramgarh, District Ramgarh ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Vedika Credit Capital Ltd., through its legal officer, namely, Manoj Kumar Prajapati, S/o Sri Nanka Prajapati at Dhirenpuri, PO, PS and Dist. Hazaribag-825301 ...... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate For the State :- Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, Advocate

----

2/14.06.2021 Heard Mr. Bharat Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Ms. Snehlika Bhagat, the learned State counsel.

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.

3. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing of

order dated 21.08.2014 by which processes under section 82 Cr.PC has been

issued and order dated 22.09.2014 under section 83 Cr.PC has been issued

and order dated 24.07.2015 whereby the petitioner has been declared

absconder and permanent warrant has been ordered to be issued by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case

No.493/2010 (T.R.No.1445/10).

4. Mr. Bharat Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that without examining that the non-bailable warrant has

been served or not the impugned order has been passed. He further submits

that there is parameters laid down by this Court in the case of "Md. Rustum

Alam @ Rustam v. State of Jharkhand " reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712 which

has not been followed. He further submits that there is no indication of time

and place in the light of Form-IV of Cr.P.C as held by this Court in

"Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam v. State of Jharkhand " reported in 2020 (2)

JLJR 712 He submits that the impugned orders have been passed

mechanically without applying the mind.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent State tried to justify the

impugned orders.

6. On perusal of the impugned orders, it transpires that the

parameters laid down by this Court in the case of has not been followed.

Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 21.08.2014, 22.09.2014 and

24.07.2015 are quashed.

7. The court below is at liberty to proceed afresh strictly in terms

of the Cr.P.C and the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of

"Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam v. State of Jharkhand".

8. Cr.M.P. 815 of 2021 stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) SI/