Bindhyachal Chourasiya vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4104 Jhar

       IN        THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr.M.P. No. 1136 of 2015
                                      with
                               I.A. No. 6539 of 2015
       1. Bindhyachal Chourasiya
       2. Daroga Prasad Chourasiya
       3. Smt. Umrawati Devi                            ..... ... Petitioners
                                    Versus
       1. The State of Jharkhand.
       2. Renu Chowrasia                                ..... ...       Opposite Parties
                                 --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate.

                                 :        Ms. Rishi Bharti, Advocate
       For the State             :        Mr. S.K. Srivastava, A.P.P.
       For the O.P. No. 2        :        Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.
                                 ------
06/ 11.10.2022       I.A. No. 6539 of 2015 has been filed for amendment in
       the prayer portion of the main petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that by order dated 13.07.2015, the learned court has issued the proclamation under Section 83 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner.

3. Since this order has been passed subsequently, the prayer made in the aforesaid I.A. is allowed.

4. Let the aforesaid I.A. be treated as a part of the main petition.

5. This petition has been filed for quashing of the orders dated 26.04.2014, 15.04.2015 and 13.07.2015, whereby non-bailable warrant of arrest and processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. respectively have been directed to be issued against the petitioners, in connection with Adityapur (RIT) P.S. Case No. 205 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the O.P. No. 2. He submits that the case is arising out of 498-A and other Sections of the IPC. He further submits that the aforesaid orders are not in accordance with law.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 opposes the prayer.

8. In view of the above, the court has gone through the materials available on record and finds that in the order dated 26.04.2014, the learned court has not recorded that earlier the warrant or summon has been executed or not. There is no indication of Form-IV Cr.P.C. in the order issuing process under Section 82 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.

9. Since these orders are not in accordance with law, the subsequent order will not survive.

10. As such, the impugned orders dated 26.04.2014, 15.04.2015 and 13.07.2015, whereby non-bailable warrant of arrest and processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. respectively have been directed to be issued against the petitioners, in connection with Adityapur (RIT) P.S. Case No. 205 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, are hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella 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).

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

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-