Rajvikram Singh Deo vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4649 Jhar

       IN     THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No. 3432 of 2021
       Rajvikram Singh Deo                              .....   ...      Petitioner
                                    Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand.
      2. Sanjiv Kapila                                 .... ...      Opposite Parties
                                --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

      For the Petitioner        :        Mrs. Surabhi, Advocate.
      For the State             :        Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
                                ------
06/ 21.11.2022     Heard Mrs. Surabhi, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the orders dated 09.04.2021, 20.05.2017 and 04.04.2019, by which, non-bailable warrant of arrest and processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. respectively have been directed to be issued against the petitioner, in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 33 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 390 of 2016, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that so far as the order dated 20.05.2017 is concerned, the same has been quashed with regard to other co-accused person is concerned in Cr.M.P. No.1505 of 2020, vide order dated 09.02.2021. She submits that the order issuing process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is not in accordance with law. She further submits that the petitioner is residing outside of India since the year 2002 itself and the case has been registered in the year 2016. She further submits that without execution of the summon and warrant, the aforesaid orders have been passed by the learned trial court.

4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the petitioner is not appearing before the learned court, that's why, the learned court has compelled to pass the aforesaid orders.

5. In view of the above and considering the submissions of the parties, the court has gone through the order dated 04.04.2019 and finds that the learned court without considering the execution report of the summon and warrant, has passed the said order, which is not in accordance with law. Moreover, no satisfaction has been recorded by the concerned Court. There is no indication of Form-IV Cr.P.C., which is statutory in nature, as held by this court in Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustum & Ors. V. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712.

6. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders dated 09.04.2021, 20.05.2017 and 04.04.2019, by which, non-bailable warrant of arrest and processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. respectively have been directed to be issued against the petitioner, in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 33 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 390 of 2016, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, are hereby, quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned concerned court to proceed afresh in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. (Supra).

7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-