Ritesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 72 Jhar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                     Cr.M.P. No. 3123 of 2021
             Ritesh Kumar, aged about 27 years, son of Omprakesh Kumar, resident of
             Vill. Yamunapur, P.O. Amhara, P.S. Bihtha, Dist. Patna (Bihar)
                                                                    ... Petitioner
                                        -Versus-
             The State of Jharkhand                                 ... Opposite Party

                                                  -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P.

-----

02/06.01.2022. Heard Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. Satish Prasad, learned A.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-

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. Defect no.9(i) is ignored.

4. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner

undertakes to remove the surviving defects within two weeks.

5. If the defects are not removed within the aforesaid period, this matter

shall be placed before the Bench.

6. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.03.2021

passed in Barwadda P.S. Case No.103 of 2019, corresponding to G.R.

No.1698 of 2019, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate,

1st Class, Dhanbad.

7. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that there is no execution report of non-bailable warrant and without

recording the satisfaction of the court, by the impugned order dated

20.03.2021 process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued

against the petitioner.

8. Mr. Satish Prasad, learned A.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-

State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

9. The Court has perused the impugned order and finds that on the

application of the I.O., process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to

be issued against the petitioner. There is no satisfaction recorded by the

concerned court, which is one of the parameters under Section 82 Cr.P.C.

There is no indication of date and time, as held by this Court in paragraphs

22 and 23 of the judgment passed in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @

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

JLJR 712.

10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.03.2021 passed in

Barwadda P.S. Case No.103 of 2019, corresponding to G.R. No.1698 of

2019, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,

Dhanbad is, hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned

court to proceed afresh, in accordance with law.

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

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/