[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
M/S. Shreem Construction vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2026:JHHC:10885)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.413 of 2025
------
1. M/s. Shreem Construction, having its office at Ishakchak, Naya
Chak, Near Bhudhia Kali Asthan, P.O. and P.S.- Ishak Chak, District
Bhagalpur (Bihar) represented through Partner Hast Kamal Mishra,
aged about 53 years, son of Bhabesha Mishra, Resident of Nayachak,
Bhuriya Kali Asthan, Ishakchak, Jagdishpur P.O.- and P.S.-
Ishakchak, District- Bhagalpur, State- Bihar
2. Hast Kamal Mishra, aged about 53 years, son of Bhabesha Mishra,
Resident of Nayachak, Bhuriya Kali Sthan, Ishakchak, Jagdishpur
P.O.- and P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- Bhagalpur, State- Bihar
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sandip Ganguly, Son of Sri Kanhai Lal Ganguli (ITO) Office of
ACIT, TDS Circle, Dhanbad, Aayakar Bhawan, Luby Circular Road,
P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad, Dist- Dhanbad, Jharkhand
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
Mr. Vijay Shanker Jha, Advocate,
Mr. Abhishek Sharan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Sr. SC
Mr. Durgesh Agarwal, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
(2026:JHHC:10885)
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with several prayers but at the outset, learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not press the
prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the order
dated 09.02.2018 passed in Economic Offence Case No. 03 of 2018 (C.O.
No.03 of 2018) and the order dated 30.05.2023 by which the attachment
order under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. has been issued, as till now, no
property of the petitioner has been attached.
3. Accordingly, the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings
of Economic Offence Case No. 03 of 2018 (C.O. No.03 of 2018) as well as
the orders dated 09.02.2018 and 30.05.2023 passed by the learned Senior
Judge Division-II-cum-Special Judge Economic Offence, Dhanbad, in
the said case, are rejected as not pressed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines the prayers to quash
the order dated 12.06.2018 passed in the said Economic Offence Case
No. 03 of 2018 (C.O. No.03 of 2018) passed by the learned Senior Judge
Division-II-cum-Special Judge Economic Offence, Dhanbad whereby
bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner without
receiving the service report of the summons issued to the petitioners.
Prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 19.01.2019 passed
in the said Economic Offence Case No. 03 of 2018 (C.O. No.03 of 2018)
passed by the learned Senior Judge Division-II-cum-Special Judge
Economic Offence, Dhanbad by which non-bailable warrant of arrest
has been issued without the execution report of the bailable warrant of
arrest being received back by the court; and also to quash the order
(2026:JHHC:10885)
dated 24.01.2020 passed in the said Economic Offence Case No. 03 of
2018 (C.O. No.03 of 2018) passed by the learned Senior Judge Division-
II-cum-Special Judge Economic Offence, Dhanbad by which process
under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioners; who
are the accused persons of the said case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned
Senior Judge Division-II-cum-Special Judge Economic Offence,
Dhanbad has committed a grave illegality by ordering for issue of
bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners when the service report
of the summon issued to the petitioners was never received in the court
concerned. Similarly, without receipt of the execution report of the
bailable warrant of arrest, issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest
against the petitioners is also not sustainable in law. It is next submitted
that without recording any satisfaction that the petitioners are
absconding or concealing themselves to evade their arrest, the order of
issuing the process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is also bad in law.
Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant
Cr.M.P., be allowed.
6. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State and the learned
counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently
oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and
submit that the very fact that the learned Special Judge has issued the
bailable warrant, non-bailable of arrest and proclamation under Section
82 of Cr.P.C. itself goes to show that there were sufficient materials in
(2026:JHHC:10885)
the record for the learned Special Judge to be satisfied for issuance of
such processes. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without
any merit, be dismissed.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is
pertinent to mention here that since the learned Special Judge vide
order dated 09.02.2018 passed in the said Economic Offence Case No. 03
of 2018 (C.O. No.03 of 2018) has directed to issue summons to the
petitioners so, without the service report of the summons issued, it
ought not have directed for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest
vide order dated 12.06.2018 passed in the said case, hence, this Court
has no hesitation in holding that the order dated 12.06.2018 passed in
the said Economic Offence Case No. 03 of 2018 (C.O. No.03 of 2018) by
the learned Senior Judge Division-II-cum-Special Judge Economic
Offence, Dhanbad is not sustainable in law.
8. Accordingly, the said order dated 12.06.2018 passed in the said
Economic Offence Case No. 03 of 2018 (C.O. No.03 of 2018) by the
learned Senior Judge Division-II-cum-Special Judge Economic Offence,
Dhanbad is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above.
9. So far as the order dated 19.01.2019 passed in the said Economic
Offence Case No. 03 of 2018 (C.O. No.03 of 2018) is concerned, since
vide order dated 12.06.2018 the learned Senior Judge Division-II-cum-
Special Judge Economic Offence, Dhanbad directed to issue bailable
warrant of arrest, it ought to have ensured that the execution report of
(2026:JHHC:10885)
the said non-bailable warrant of arrest is received back in the record,
before passing of any order for issue of non-bailable warrant of arrest
but having not done so and without any execution report of bailable
warrant of arrest vide 19.01.2019 passed in the said case, the learned
Special Judge having ordered for issuance of non-bailable warrant of
arrest against the petitioners, the same is also not sustainable in law.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 19.01.2019 passed in the said
Economic Offence Case No. 03 of 2018 (C.O. No.03 of 2018) by the
learned Senior Judge Division-II-cum-Special Judge Economic Offence,
Dhanbad is also quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above.
11. So far as the order dated 24.01.2020 passed in the said Economic
Offence Case No. 03 of 2018 (C.O. No.03 of 2018) by the learned Senior
Judge Division-II-cum-Special Judge Economic Offence, Dhanbad is
concerned, by now it is a settled principle of law that the court which
issues the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. must record its
satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation under
Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is made, is absconding or concealing himself to
evade his arrest and in case the court decides to issue proclamation
under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. it must mention the time and place for
appearance of the accused in the order itself by which the proclamation
under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is issued. As already indicated above since
the learned Senior Judge Division-II-cum-Special Judge Economic
Offence, Dhanbad has neither recorded its satisfaction that the
petitioners are absconding or concealing themselves to evade their
(2026:JHHC:10885)
arrest nor fixed any time and place for appearance of the petitioners,
this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Senior Judge
Division-II-cum-Special Judge Economic Offence, Dhanbad has
committed a grave illegality by issuing the process under Section 82 of
Cr.P.C. without complying the mandatory requirements of law. Hence,
the same is not sustainable in law and the continuation of the same will
amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the order
dated 24.01.2020 passed in the said Economic Offence Case No. 03 of
2018 (C.O. No.03 of 2018) by the learned Senior Judge Division-II-cum-
Special Judge Economic Offence, Dhanbad is also not sustainable in
law.
12. Accordingly, the order dated 24.01.2020 passed in the said
Economic Offence Case No. 03 of 2018 (C.O. No.03 of 2018) by the
learned Senior Judge Division-II-cum-Special Judge Economic Offence,
Dhanbad is also quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named
above.
13. The learned Senior Judge Division-II-cum-Special Judge
Economic Offence, Dhanbad may pass a fresh order in accordance with
law.
14. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, is allowed to the aforesaid
extent only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 16th of April, 2026
AFR/ Animesh
Uploaded on- 17/04/2026
