Pankaj Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1548 Jhar

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr. M.P. No. 372 of 2021
             Pankaj Kumar, aged about 25 years, Son of Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh,
             Resident of Road No.2, Lane No.18, New Colony, Chotli Delha, P.O. & P.S.
             Delha, Dist.- Gaya, Bihar                        ... Petitioner
                                       -Versus-
             The State of Jharkhand                           ... Opposite Party
                                             -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P.

-----

04/25.03.2021. Heard Mr. Vijay Shankar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. Rajesh 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

12.01.2021, whereby, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to

be issued against the petitioner in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case

No.277/2017, corresponding to G.R. No.987/2017, pending in the court of

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella Kharsawan.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without following the

due process of law as described under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and

other judgments of the Court particularly in the case of Md. Rustum

Alam @ Rustam & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand , reported in 2020

(2) JLJR 712, the impugned order has been passed, which is not

maintainable.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing for the

opposite party-State submits that the process has rightly been issued on the

application of the I.O.. He also submits that there is no illegality in the

impugned order.

6. On perusal of the order dated 03.10.2018, it appears that warrant of

arrest has been issued on that day. Non-bailable warrant has not been

issued against the petitioner and on 12.01.2021, process under Section 82

Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner. Although this

order speaks that the I.O. has attempted to arrest the accused, but could

not arrest him, but rest of the parameters with regard to Section 82 Cr.P.C.

has not been followed. Form-4 Cr.P.C. is not disclosed and time and place of

appearance has not been disclosed, which is against the judgment passed

by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam (supra).

7. Accordingly, the order dated 12.01.2021 passed in connection with

Adityapur P.S. Case No.277/2017, corresponding to G.R. No.987/2017,

pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella

Kharsawan 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, this petition stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/