Jharkhand High Court
Nitesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 527 of 2021
------
Nitesh Kumar ... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... .... Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ramchander Sahu, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suraj Verma, A.P.P
For the Informant : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate
04/23.06.2021 Mr. Ramchander Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner
undertakes to remove the defects within one week.
If the defects are not removed within the aforesaid period, office is
directed to list this matter before appropriate Bench.
Heard Mr. Ramchander Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Suraj Verma, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
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
13.02.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in
connection with Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2019 whereby process
under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner, pending in
the Court of learned C.J.M, Pakur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that
petitioner is willing to appear in the court below however, in view of order
dated 13.02.2020 by which process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been
issued, the petitioner is not appearing. He further submits that the order
dated 13.02.2020 is not in consonance with the requirement under section
82 Cr.P.C. He submits that process under 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. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2
vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that there is
full satisfaction and there is no illegality in the impugned order.
On perusal of impugned order dated 13.02.2020, it transpires that
in Form-IV, 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 13.02.2020 is
quashed. However, the Court below is at liberty to proceed afresh strictly 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.
If the petitioner appears in the court below on or before
28.07.2021, the Court below shall consider that petitioner is before the
Court.
With the above observation and direction, this criminal
miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-
