Jharkhand High Court
Rabindra Kumar Verma @ Ravindra Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opp. Party on 8 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1 Cr.M.P. No.3966 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3966 of 2023
Rabindra Kumar Verma @ Ravindra Kumar Verma, aged about 51
years, S/o. Sri Deo Nath Prasad, R/o Temple Road, P.O. -Manaitand,
P.S. -Joraphatak, District -Dhaband. .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Opp. Party
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Addl. P.P.
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer
for quashing the order dated 25.10.2012 by which warrant of
arrest has been issued against the petitioner in connection with
Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 1056 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case
No. 4101 of 2012 registered under Sections 419/420/465/ 467/
468/471/472/473/474 of the Indian Penal Code and prayer has
also been made for quashing the order dated 03.11.2012 in the said
case whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dhanbad issued the proclamation under Section 82
Cr.P.C. without recording its satisfaction that the petitioner is
absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest and without
fixing any time and place for appearance of the petitioner.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a
Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Magistrate of 1st Class may direct
warrant to any person within his local jurisdiction inter-alia if any
person is accused of non-bailable offence and is evading arrest.
Drawing attention of this Court to the order dated 25.10.2012, it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has nowhere mentioned that the
petitioner is evading his arrest and in the absence of that, still
issuing warrant of arrest amounts to an illegality. Hence, it is
submitted that the said order dated 25.10.2012 be quashed and set
aside.
4. So far as the order dated 03.11.2012 is concerned, it is submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the said order,
without following the due process of law and without recording
the satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing
himself to evade his arrest which is a sine-qua-non for issuing the
proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and without fixing any
time and place for appearance of the petitioner has ordered for
issuance of the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Hence, the
same is also not sustainable in law. It is, therefore, submitted that
the order dated 03.11.2012 be also quashed and set aside.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand
vehemently opposes the prayer to quash the order dated
25.10.2012 by which warrant of arrest has been issued against the
petitioner in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 1056 of 2012
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4101 of 2012 and also the order
dated 03.11.2012, passed in the said case whereby and where
under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has issued
the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and submits that the
petitioner has approached this Court belatedly after a so long gap
and it is submitted that the very fact that the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate has issued the warrant of arrest and the
proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. itself shows that there were
materials available for the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to be
satisfied that there is justification for issuing the warrant of arrest
and the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Hence, it is
submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without
any merit be dismissed.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to
mention here that Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
empowers the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Magistrate of first
class to direct a warrant inter-alia to any person who is accused of
a non-bailable offences and is evading arrest. So two pre-
conditions inter-alia required is that
(i) the person against whom warrant is directed to be an
accused of a non-bailable offence; and
(ii) he is evading arrest.
7. Now coming to the order dated 25.10.2012, this Court finds that
that there is neither any material in the record nor there is any
satisfaction recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate that the
petitioner who is the accused person of the case is evading his
arrest, in the absence of the same, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has committed
illegality in issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner. Hence,
this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the
order dated 25.10.2012, passed in the Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 1056
of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4101 of 2012 will amount
to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the
order dated 25.10.2012, passed in the said Dhanbad P.S. Case No.
1056 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4101 of 2012 be
quashed and set aside.
8. So far as the order dated 03.11.2012 passed in the said Dhanbad
P.S. Case No. 1056 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4101 of
2012 is concerned, by now it is a settled principle of law that the
Court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
must record its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom
proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is made is absconding or
concealing himself to evade his arrest and in case the court
decides to issue the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., it must
mention the time and place for appearance of the petitioner in the
order itself by which the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is
issued. As already indicated above, the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dhanbad has neither recorded its satisfaction that the
petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest
nor fixed any time and place for appearance of the petitioner, this
Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dhanbad has committed illegality in committing the
offence punishable under Section 82 Cr.P.C. without complying
the mandatory requirement of law. Hence, the same is not
sustainable in law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the order
dated 03.11.2012 passed in the said Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 1056 of
2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 4101 of 2012 be also quashed
and set aside.
9. So far as the delay is concerned, perusal of the record reveals
that the petitioner earlier filed Cr.M.P. No. 2462 of 2012
challenging the F.I.R. and subsequently the cognizance order and
the proceedings of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 1056 of 2012 was stayed
vide order dated 05.12.2012 and the order of stay remained in
force till 30.11.2023 when the criminal miscellaneous petition was
dismissed. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the
delay in filing this criminal miscellaneous petition cannot make
the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dhanbad to be valid and legal which has already been held to be
illegal in the foregoing paragraphs of this Judgment.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 25.10.2012 by which warrant of
arrest has been issued against the petitioner in connection with
Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 1056 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case
No. 4101 of 2012 and also the order dated 03.11.2012, passed in the
said case whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dhanbad has issued the proclamation under Section
82 Cr.P.C. are quashed and set aside.
11. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad may pass a fresh
order in accordance with law.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 8th January, 2024
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
