Rajeev Kumar Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1081 Jhar

                                     1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr.M.P. No. 3509 of 2021

   Rajeev Kumar Mahato                                 ...... Petitioner
                       Versus
                       ...............

1.The State of Jharkhand

2. Supriya Kumari ...... Opposite Parties

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.

4/Dated: 21/03/2022 Heard Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned counsel for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of orders

21.01.2019 and 29.07.2019 whereby N.B.W. and process under section 82

Cr.P.C. respectively have been directed to be issued against the petitioner in

connection with C.P. Case No. 1602 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned

Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad.

3. Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that by order dated 21.01.2019, N.B.W. has been issued against the

petitioner without service of execution report of earlier summon and bailable

warrant. He further submits that by order dated 29.07.2019 process under

section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued without complying the parameter of section

82 Cr.P.C and without complying the 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.

4. Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned counsel for the State submits the

there are no illegality in the impugned orders.

5. The Court has perused the impugned orders. From perusal of

impugned order dated 21.01.2019, it transpires that there is no indication of

execution report of earlier summon and bailable warrant and only on the basis

of order of A.B.A., the said order has been passed. Subsequent order dated

29.07.2019 is also not in accordance with law. There is no satisfaction of the

concerned court has been recorded and there is no mention of date, time and

place as held by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam

(supra).

6. Accordingly, impugned orders dated 21.01.2019 and 29.07.2019

whereby N.B.W. and process under section 82 Cr.P.C. respectively have been

directed to be issued against the petitioner in connection with C.P. Case No.

1602 of 2017, are quashed.

7. The matter is remitted back to the concerned court to pass afresh

order in accordance with law.

8. 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/