Akil Hashmi @ Md. Aakhil Hashmi @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1277 Jhar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                Cr. M.P. No. 2599 of 2019
                 Akil Hashmi @ Md. Aakhil Hashmi @ Raja, aged about 28 years, son of
                 Late Abdul Majid @ Majid Hashmi, Resident of Near Masjid,
                 Pandarpara, P.O., P.S. & District- Dhanbad    ... Petitioner
                                         -Versus-
                 The State of Jharkhand                        ... Opposite Party
                                              -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

             For the Petitioner               : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
             For the State                    : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P.
                                              -----

05/15.03.2021. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, learned A.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-

State.

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 preferred this writ petition for quashing the order

dated 20.10.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, Dhanbad in connection

with Special POCSO Case No.57 of 2020 arising out of Bankmore (Bhuli) P.S.

Case No. 160 of 2020, whereby, proclamation under Section 82 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure has been issued against the petitioner.

4. Vide order dated 01.02.2021, a fresh explanation was called for from

the Special Judge-cum-Additional District Judge-IX, Dhanbad. Pursuant

there to an explanation has been received, which has been placed on

record. On perusal of the explanation, it transpires that the learned District

& Additional Sessions Judge-IX cum Special Judge-POCSO, Dhanbad has

stated that inadvertently the place and time of appearance of the accused

upon Form-IV were not mentioned. The explanation was called from by this

Court in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Md.

Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand , reported

in 2020 (2) JLJR 712, wherein, direction was issued to strictly comply the

proclamation issued under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by

way of filling up Form-IV. On perusing the explanation and apology by the

learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-IX cum Special Judge-POCSO,

Dhanbad, it transpires that he has tendered unconditional apology and he

has stated that he will not repeat this mistake again in future. Accordingly,

the said explanation is accepted by this Court.

5. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the present

case and in view of the admission of the learned court below about non-

filling of Form-IV in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in the case

of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam (supra), the impugned order dated

20.10.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, Dhanbad in connection with

Special POCSO Case No.57 of 2020 arising out of Bankmore (Bhuli) P.S.

Case No. 160 of 2020 is quashed and set aside.

6. The matter is remitted back to the court below to proceed afresh in

terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the judgment passed by this

Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam (supra), in accordance

with law.

7. With the above direction, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands

disposed of.

8. Interim order dated 18.01.2021 stands vacated.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/