Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 May, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1033 of 2022
Sanjay Kumar Singh, aged about 42 years, son of Devmuni Singh, resident
of village Lotara, P.O. Kutmu, P.S. Pandu, District- Palamau, Jharkhand
...... Petitioner
Versus
...............
The State of Jharkhand ...... Opposite Party
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Anuj Kumar Trivedi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.C. Sinha, A.C. to G.A.-III
3/Dated: 12/05/2022
A supplementary affidavit has been filed for removing the defects.
2. In view of supplementary affidavit, surviving defect is ignored.
3. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
P.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the State.
4. The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated
11.03.2022 whereby process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the
petitioner in connection with Pandu P.S. Case No. 19 of 2021, pending in the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Palamau at Daltonganj.
5. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
F.I.R. was lodged alleging therein that a sum of Rs. 30,66,000/- has been cheated by
the three accused persons including the petitioner. He further submits that the
petitioner along with two others have moved in A.B.A. No. 5059 of 2021 which was
allowed on the condition that petitioner along with two other accused persons shall
return Rs. 30,66,000/-. He further submits that subsequently two other accused
persons denied to pay the amount in question. Thereafter petitioner filed Cr.M.P. No.
2726 of 2021 for modification of order so that part of payment which falls liability of
the petitioner to be deposited by him which has been rejected and against the said
order the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a petition which
is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submits that the order
by which process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued is not in accordance with
law. He submits that satisfaction of the court has not been recorded. He submits that
indication of date, time and place which is statutory in nature has not been disclosed.
He 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. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no
illegality in the impugned order.
7. From perusal of impugned order dated 11.03.2022, it transpires that
the court concerned has not recorded satisfaction in passing such order. Further, it
appears that there is no compliance of provision held in the judgment of "Md.
Rustum Alam @ Rustam (supra). Moreover this is not a case where petitioner is
evading his arrest. The petitioner has taken recourse under Cr.P.C. by filing
anticipatory bail application. The petitioner has also filed petition before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court which is still pending.
8. In view of the above facts, impugned order dated 11.03.2022 whereby
process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner in connection
with Pandu P.S. Case No. 19 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, Ist Class, Palamau at Daltonganj, 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/
