Jharkhand High Court
Binod Singh @ S.N. Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 268 of 2021
------
1. Binod Singh @ S.N. Singh, son of Inderdeo Singh
2. Tarkeshwar Singh, son of Basudeo Singh
3. Shankar Rawani, son of Ram Charan Rawani
4. Yusuf Mian @ Md. Yusuf Alam
5. Salama Khatton @ Sajima Khatoon wife of Md. Manjur Alam
6. Sudama Devi, wife of Ramchandra Ravidas
7. Kiran Devi, wife of Shankar Rawani
8. Chhoti Devi, wife of Kati Singh
9. Shanti Devi, wife of Birendra Rawani
10. Jalim Singh, son of late Latu Singh
11. Shanti Devi, wife of Rajkishore Singh
All residents of village-Saranda (Manjhiladih), P.O. Saranda, P.S. Birni,
District-Giridih ... .... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... .... Opposite Party
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha (2), Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Niki Sinha, A.P.P.
04/22.03.2021 Heard Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha (2), learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mrs. Niki Sinha, learned counsel for the State.
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 orders dated
29.03.2014 and 06.12.2017 whereby bailable warrant and process under
section 82 Cr.P.C. respectively have been issued against the petitioners in
connection with Birni P.S. Case No. 74 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No.
1276 of 2012, T.R. No. 2033/2018, pending in the Court of Sri Nirupam
Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Giridih.
Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha (2), learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the instant case has been lodged under sections 143, 342 and
353 of the I.P.C. He submits that the impugned orders have been passed
without following the guidelines indicated under section 82 Cr.P.C and
without execution report. He submits that the process of 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.
Mrs. Niki Sinha, learned counsel for the State also accepts that
without execution report and without following the guidelines under section
82 Cr.P.C, impugned orders have been passed.
On perusal of order-sheet it transpires that on 25.01.2016
execution report was not received and under order dated 14.06.2016, non-
bailable warrant was directed to be issued. Vide order dated 23.11.2016,
15.04.2017, 22.08.2017 it has been recorded that execution report of N.B.W
has not been received and by order dated 06.12.2017, process of 82 Cr.P.C
has been issued. Section 82 Cr.P.C clearly stipulates that there must be time
and place indicated in the process and for that Form-IV is there in the Cr.P.C.
and all these aspects of the matter have been dealt with by this Court in Md.
Rustam Alam @ Rustam (supra), which has not happened while passing the
impugned orders.
In that view of the matter, impugned orders dated 29.03.2014 and
06.12.2017 are quashed. 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. Rustam Alam @ Rustam
(supra), in accordance with law.
With the above observation and direction, this criminal
miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-
