Jharkhand High Court
Gulfasa Khatoon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1506 of 2020
Gulfasa Khatoon, age about 23 years, wife of Sheikh Mansur @ Feku,
resident of Chauthai Kulhi, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand
... Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anuj Kumar Trivedi, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
-----
04/07.09.2021. Heard Mr. Anuj Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-
State.
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 on merit.
The petitioner has filed this criminal miscellaneous petition for
quashing the order dated 15.07.2016 by which warrant of arrest has been
issued against the petitioner as well as for quashing the order dated
26.07.2016 by which process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued
against the petitioner and for quashing the order dated 06.10.2016 by
which process under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. has been issued against the
petitioner by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in
connection with Jharia P.S. Case No. 100 of 2016, corresponding to G.R.
Case No.1571 of 2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the application
of the I.O., warrant of arrest has been issued vide order dated 15.07.2016.
He further submits that vide order dated 26.07.2016, process under Section
82 of Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued, which is a non-speaking order
and against the mandate of law. He also submits that vide order dated
06.10.2016, process under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. has been directed to be
issued against the petitioner. He further submits that other co-accused
persons have filed Cr.M.P. No. 430 of 2020, which has been allowed by this
Court vide order dated 15.06.2020.
Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the opposite party-State
submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the same has
been rightly passed.
On perusal of the order dated 15.07.2016, it transpires that only on
the application of the I.O., warrant of arrest has been issued and no notice
under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. was given to the petitioner prior to issuance of
warrant of arrest. The order dated 26.07.2016 is a four line order by which
process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued, which is
not in terms of the parameters of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and against the
mandate of law in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of
Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam and Others v. The State of Jharkhand ,
reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712. As the order dated 26.07.2016 is bad in
law, the order dated 06.10.2016 shall also not survive.
In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned orders dated 15.07.2016,
26.07.2016 and 06.10.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Jharia P.S. Case No. 100 of 2016
dated 18.04.2016, corresponding to G.R. Case No.1571 of 2016 are
quashed. The matter is remanded to the court of the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad to proceed afresh strictly in terms of the
Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and
disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
