Suchitra Sardar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1745 Jhar

                                       1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr.M.P. No. 780 of 2022

Suchitra Sardar                                         ...... Petitioner
                         Versus
                         ...............

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

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, A.P.P.

4/Dated: 02/05/2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has

obtained certified copy of F.I.R. wherein no enclosure has been provided.

He further submits that by way of application from the court below it has

been informed that no enclosure was there with the F.I.R.

2. In view of such submission, surviving defect is ignored.

3. Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.

Abhay Kr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the State.

4. The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated

15.02.2022 passed in connection with Kowali P.S. Case No. 40 of 2018,

corresponding to G.R. No. 1266 of 2019, whereby process under section 82

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

5. Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the case is arising out of section 420, 406, 409 and 120B I.P.C., that is under

challenge in Cr.M.P. No. 30 of 2022. He further submits that impugned order

dated 15.02.2022 is not under parameter of section 82 of the Cr.P.C. He

submits that no satisfaction has been recorded in such order. He further

submits that process of 82 Cr.P.C. has not been issued in compliance of

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.

6. Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the State submits that

there is no illegality in the impugned order. He further submits that the

petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation.

7. From perusal of impugned order, the Court finds that no

satisfaction has been recorded in passing such order. There is no indication of

date, time and place as held in the judgment of "Md. Rustum Alam @

Rustam (supra)

8. In view of the above facts, order dated 15.02.2022 passed in

connection with Kowali P.S. Case No. 40 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No.

1266 of 2019, whereby process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued

against the petitioner, is hereby quashed.

9. The matter is remitted back to the court concerned 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/