Jharkhand High Court
Ran Vijay Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 September, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 1855 of 2021
----
Ran Vijay Prasad, aged about 72 years, son of late R.Lal, resident of
A-7/801, Olive Country, Sector-5, Vasundhara, PO and PS Ghaziabad,
District -Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh ..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Ms. Lavanya Gadodia, Advocate
For the State :- Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.PP
----
3/07.09.2021 Heard Ms. Lavanya Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the State.
2. 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.
3. The petitioner has filed this petitioner for quashing the
order dated 16.07.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Madhupur, Deoghar whereby process under section 82 Cr.P.C was
directed to be issued against the petitioner in connection with Sarath
P.S.Case No.165 of 2012, corresponding to G.R.No.611 of 2012.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was availing remedy under the Cr.P.C and he has filed
the A.B.P. which was rejected vide order dated 28.06.2021 by the learned
Sessions Judge, Deoghar. She further submits that the petitioner has
moved before this Court in A.B.A No.4796 of 2021 which was withdrawn
in view of the fact that in the meantime impugned order has been passed
under section 82 Cr.P.C. By way of referring Annexure-3 at page-54
which is Aadhar Card of the petitioner she submits that the petitioner
after retirement is residing in Gaziabad and he was a government servant
and is aged about 72 years.
5. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned State counsel submits that
the petitioner had filed A.B.P and A.B.A petitions having knowledge of
the pendency of the case and inspite of that the petitioner has not
appeared in the Court.
6. On perusal of the order dated 16.07.2021, it transpires that
it is not the case of the petitioner that he has not availed the remedy
under the law, the petitioner has moved in A.B.P which was rejected on
28.06.2021 and the petitioner has filed A.B.A which was permitted to be
withdrawn in view of the fact that section 82 Cr.P.C order has been
passed and after 82 order A.B.A was not maintainable and only on the
application of the I.O. process under section 82 Cr.PC has been directed
to be issued. There is no indication of time, place and date which has
been held to be mandatory in terms of Para-23 of the judgment rendered
in case of "Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam and Others v. The State of
Jharkhand", 2020 (2) JLJR 712.
7. Accordingly, impugned order dated 16.07.2021 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Madhupur, Deoghar in connection
with Sarath P.S.Case No.165 of 2012, corresponding to G.R.No.611 of
2012 is quashed.
8. The matter is remitted back to the concerned court to
proceed afresh strictly in terms of Cr.P.C.
9. Cr.M.P. No.1855 of 2021 stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
SI/
