Aman Singh @ Aman Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1539 Jhar

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr. M.P. No. 538 of 2021
             1.   Aman Singh @ Aman Kumar, aged about 21 years, son of Vinay Singh,
                  resident of Sarjamda Bus stand Barigora, P.O. & P.S. Rahargora, Town-
                  Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum
             2.   Dhanjay Singh @ Kalu @ Dhananjay Singh, aged about 22 years, son
                  of Satyendra Singh, resident of Jojobera Scrap yard, P.O. & P.S.
                  Govindpur, Town Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum
             3.   Amandeep Singh @ Aman Singh, aged about 21 years, son of
                  Hardeep Singh, resident of village Jojobera Mohan Bagar near Shiv
                  Mandir, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Town Jamshedpur, District- East
                  Singhbhum                                       ... Petitioners
                                         -Versus-
                  The State of Jharkhand                          ... Opposite Party
                                            -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedy, Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P.

-----

03/25.03.2021. Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Ashok Kumar, 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 filed this petition for quashing the order dated

19.12.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Jamshedpur in Parsudih P.S. Case No.18 of 2019, by which, process under

Section 82 Cr.P.C. Has been issued against the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that proclamation under

Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioners without following

the procedure as prescribed in the Cr.P.C. and other judgments of the Court

particularly the judgment passed in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @

Rustam & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand , reported in 2020 (2) JLJR

712.

5. Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-State

submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order on the ground that

the concerned police officer has tried to apprehend the petitioners and,

thereafter, the impugned order has been passed.

6. On perusal of the order dated 19.12.2020, it transpires that although

the statement is there that the concerned police officer has tried to

apprehend the petitioners, but it is not disclosed on which date the raid was

made by the I.O. at the house of the petitioners for apprehending them.

Moreover, there is no mention of time and place of appearance in light of

Form-4 Cr.P.C., which is against the judgment of this Court in the case of

Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam (supra).

7. Accordingly, the order dated 19.12.2020 passed by the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Parsudih P.S. Case No.18

of 2019 is quashed.

8. 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.

9. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/