Nirmal Mukherjee vs Union Of India Through Cbi
2023 Latest Caselaw 1661 Jhar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               W.P. (Cr.) No. 168 of 2023
                Nirmal Mukherjee                               ... Petitioner
                                         -Versus-
            Union of India through CBI                         ... Respondent
                                            -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

            For the Petitioner        : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
                                        Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
            For the CBI               : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate
                                            -----

03/19.04.2023       This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.05.2022

contained in Annexure-6 of the petition passed by the learned AJC-XVIII,

Ranchi in connection with RC-02(S)/2021-EOW-R, corresponding to RC-

03(S)/2018-EOW-R, whereby the learned Special Court has been pleased to

issue process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner, pending in the

court of the learned AJC-XVIII, Ranchi.

2. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits the

petitioner has not received any summon of bailable warrant and non-

bailable warrant and in spite of that, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has

been directed to be issued against the petitioner, which is not in accordance

with law.

3. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the CBI submits that it appears

that the petitioner is having two addresses and it has been reported that

the petitioner has sold one of the house and he was not found present in

another house.

4. In view of the above, admittedly the summon has not been executed

against the petitioner, however the learned court has been pleased to issue

process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. Looking to the order

dated 10.05.2022, the Court finds that the satisfaction of the court is not

recorded, which is one of the parameter to pass order under Section 82

Cr.P.C. Further in view of the judgment passed in Md. Rustam Alam @

Rustam v. The State of Jharkhand; [(2020) 2 JLJR 712 , by which

the time and place are required to be indicated, the same has not been

followed in the impugned order.

5. In that view of the matter, the order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the

learned AJC-XVIII, Ranchi in connection with RC-02(S)/2021-EOW-R,

corresponding to RC-03(S)/2018-EOW-R, pending in the court of the

learned AJC-XVIII, Ranchi is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the

learned concerned court to pass order afresh, in accordance with law.

6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/