Chanchal Kumar Mishra @ Chanchal ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 8 Jhar

                                        1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr.M.P. No. 2214 of 2021

  Chanchal Kumar Mishra @ Chanchal Kumar @ Mishra
                                              ...... Petitioner
                       Versus
                       ...............

The State of Jharkhand                        ...... Opposite Party
                        ---------

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                     ---------

For the Petitioner   : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State        : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.

4/Dated: 03/01/2022

Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.

Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the State.

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.

The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated

03.08.2021 passed in Dumka Town P.S. Case No. 298 of 2018 whereby process under

sections 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner, pending in

the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the ground of

issuing notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C, N.B.W. has been directed to be issued against

the petitioner on the application filed by the I.O. He submits that by order dated

03.08.2021, process under sections 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued without complying the

parameter of judgement passed by this Court in the case of "Md. Rustum Alam @

Rustam & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712.

Learned counsel for the State submits that notice under section 41-A

Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner.

From perusal of order dated 25.02.2021, it transpires that it has been

recorded therein that notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. has been issued against the

petitioner and petitioner has not surrendered. Further it transpires that straightway on

the application of I.O., N.B.W. has been issued. From perusal of impugned order dated

03.08.2021, it transpires that process of 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued, which is not in

accordance with law. There is no satisfaction recorded by the trial court while issuing

such order. There is no indication of date, time and place in the impugned order

which is against the mandate of judgment in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @

Rustam (supra)..

In view of the above facts and considering the facts that only on the

basis of application of I.O., N.B.W. has been issued thereafter order dated 03.8.2021

has been passed which is not under the parameter of section 82 Cr.P.C, the impugned

order dated 03.08.2021 passed in Dumka Town P.S. Case No. 298 of 2018 whereby

process under sections 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner,

pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, is hereby quashed.

The matter is remitted back to the court of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Dumka to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

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/