Jharkhand High Court
Devaki Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 February, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 395 of 2022
1. Devaki Yadav
2. Kunti Devi
...... Petitioners
Versus
...............
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioners : Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.
02/Dated: 28/02/2022
It appears that in the impugned order P.S. Case number is wrongly typed
as 13/2021. In hand written ordersheet, P.S. Case number is correct i.e. 13/2020 but
in typed copy, P.S. Case number has been wrongly typed as 13/2021.
2. Defect, as pointed out by the office, is ignored.
3. Heard Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.
Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for the State.
4. The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated
15.12.2021 passed in connection with Domchanch P.S. Case No. 13/2020 whereby
process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner,
pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Koderma .
5. Mrs. Rashmi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioners have not received notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. She further submits
that learned court has not disclosed how the petitioners are evading from his arrest
and only on the petition of I.O., the learned court below came to the conclusion that
the petitioner is evading their arrest. She further submits that procedure of sections
62, 64 and 65 of the Cr.P.C has not been followed in passing the impugned order. She
draws the attention of the Court to the order dated 23.08.2021 which is with regard
to one of the co-accused namely, Bittu Kumar Yadav who is husband of informant and
submits that by this order the learned court below on the petition of the I.O. has not
come to the conclusion that the said accused was evading his arrest and refused to
issue proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., but in the case of petitioner on the vague
statement, it has been concluded that the petitioners who are father-in-law and
mother-in-law of the informant, are evading their arrest. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that petitioners availed remedy under Cr.P.C. and filed anticipatory
bail petition in which case diary was called but during pendency of anticipatory bail
petition, the impugned order has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the
impugned order.
7. The Court has perused the impugned order. The concerned court has
depicted the date, time and place in the impugned order as per law laid down in the
judgment passed by this Court in the case of "Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors.
Vs. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712. However,
satisfaction in passing that order has not been recorded which is one of the parameter
under section 82 Cr.P.C. Merely on the petition of I.O., the learned court concluded
that the petitioners are evading their arrest wherein the case of co-accused Bittu
Kumar Yadav, vide order dated 23.08.2021 the learned court has taken different
view.
8. In view of the above facts, impugned order dated 15.12.2021 passed in
connection with Domchanch P.S. Case No. 13/2020 whereby process under section 82
Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner, is hereby quashed.
9. The matter is remitted back to the concerned court to proceed afresh in
accordance with law.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this criminal miscellaneous
petition is allowed and disposed of. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
