Jharkhand High Court
Randhir Kumar Yadav @ Pappu Yadav ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 31 January, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2849 of 2021
Randhir Kumar Yadav @ Pappu Yadav aged about 29 years, son of Nand
Kishor Yadav, resident of village and P.O. Baralota Housing Colony, P.S.-
Town Medni Nagar (T) , District-Palamau ...... Petitioner
Versus
...............
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P.
03/Dated: 31/01/2022
Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajnish
Vardhan, learned counsel for 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 present petition has been filed for quashing of orders dated
21.12.2016 and 30.07.2018 whereby process under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C
respectively have been directed to be issued against the petitioner in connection with
Palamau Sadar (T) P.S. Case No. 185 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 583 of 2015,
pending in the Court of learned C.J.M, Palamau.
4. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned orders are not in consonance with 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.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned order by which
process of 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued is of the year 2016. He submits that earlier
Cr.M.P. No. 2718 of 2016 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated
16.02.2017 and A.B.A. No. 2489 of 2016 filed by the petitioner has also been
dismissed vide order dated 18.10.2016.
6. In view of above facts and considering that earlier two petitions filed by
the petitioner has been dismissed, the Court is not inclined to pass any positive order
for quashing of said orders which are under challenge. However, in the interest of
justice it will be suffice if the petitioner be directed to appear before the concerned
court on the date fixed by this Court.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear in the concerned court
on or before 03.03.2022. On his appearance before the concerned court on or before
such date, the impugned orders dated 21.12.2016 and 30.07.2018 whereby process
under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C respectively have been directed to be issued against
the petitioner in connection with Palamau Sadar (T) P.S. Case No. 185 of 2015,
corresponding to G.R. No. 583 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M,
Palamau, shall not be given effect to.
8. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to appear in the concerned
court on or before the date assigned by this Court, the concerned court shall take all
the coercive steps against the petitioner. .
9. 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/
