Magistrate must substantively satisfy issuance of Section 82 proceedings; routine orders without indication of reason are illegal.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present quashing petition has been preferred to quash the order dated 07.06.2024 passed in G.R. No. 1427 of 2024 arising out of Khajekalan P.S. Case No. 94 of 2024, where learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Patna City, has passed an order for the initiation of proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., which has been issued on 18.06.2024 against the petitioner/accused.

3. The allegation against the petitioner as per FIR is to commit rape upon O.P. No. 2 on the false pretext of marriage, subsequent to his acquaintance with O.P. No. 2 at a wedding function in Gujarat. It is alleged that all instances of the purported physical relationship took place at Patna during the petitioner’s visits.

4. The main question which requires adjudication in the present quashing petition is whether the issuance of proceedings by learned Trial Court under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner was justified or not.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that before the issuance of proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. compliance with mandatory provisions as available under Sections 61-69 of Cr.P.C. (Chapter VI-A) and Sections 71-75 of Cr.P.C. (Chapter VI-B) not appear to be followed in the present case. It is submitted that the proceeding of this case was not in the knowledge of the petitioner, and, therefore, the issuance of process under Section 82 is appearing bad in the eyes of the law. While concluding his argument learned counsel relied upon the legal reports of this Hon’ble Court as available through Krishna Murari Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar reported through 2005 SCC OnLine Pat 712 & Pinki Kumari and Another Vs. The State of Bihar and Others reported through Cr.W.J.C. No. 712 of 2022 dated 26.08.2022

6. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. for the better understanding of the case:-

82. Proclamation for person absconding.-(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.

(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:

(i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;

(b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;

(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house;

(ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.

(3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day.

[(4) Where a proclamation published under sub-section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under section 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400,