Ramu Nonia vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 620 Jhar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                  Cr.M.P. No. 3477 of 2021
             Ramu Nonia, aged about 37 years, son of Bhuneshwar Nonia, resident of
             Village Babupur, P.O. Teen Pahar, P.S. Teen Pahar, District- Sahebganj
                                                                    ... Petitioner
                                         -Versus-
             The State of Jharkhand                                 ... Opposite Party

                                            -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sajid Warsi, Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.

-----

04/22.02.2022. Heard Mr. Sajid Warsi, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This petition has been taken 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. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.10.2021

by which process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the

petitioner in connection with B.B.M. Deoghar P.S. Case No. 05 of 2021,

registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending in

the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

impugned order is cryptic one. There is no satisfaction recorded by the

court while passing the impugned order.

5. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that there is

no illegality in the impugned order.

6. This Court has perused the impugned order dated 23.10.2021. It

appears that in the impugned order, satisfaction of the court is not recorded

and statutory provision with regard to Form-4 Cr.P.C. has also not been

disclosed in the impugned order, as held in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the

judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @

Rustam and Others v. The State of Jharkhand , reported in 2020 (2)

JLJR 712.

7. Accordingly, the order dated 23.10.2021 passed in connection with

B.B.M. Deoghar P.S. Case No. 05 of 2021, pending in the court of the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar is, hereby, set aside. The matter is

remitted back to the concerned court to proceed afresh, in accordance with

law.

8. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/