Back
2015 Supreme(Jhk) 959
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAVI NATH VERMA, J.
Karimuddin Ansari - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P. (Cr.) No.226 of 2015
Decided On : 28.07.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. P.S. Dayal, Advocate, . Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pran Pranay, J.C. to S.C.II
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the issuance of non-bailable warrant and process under Section 82 of the Code must be based on recorded satisfaction and in compliance with the mandates of the law.
Headnote:
Article 226 - Legality of Non-Bailable Warrant and Process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 420, 120B, 406 of the Indian Penal Code - Section 73, Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The court quashed the non-bailable warrant of arrest and the subsequent process under Section 82 of the Code due to failure to record satisfaction and follow the mandates of the Code.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the legality of the non-bailable warrant of arrest and subsequent process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure issued against him in connection with a case involving Sections 420, 120B, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders of issuance of non-bailable warrant and process under Section 82 of the Code were issued in a mechanical manner without recording any satisfaction, contrary to the mandates of the Code.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the non-bailable warrant and process under Section 82 of the Code, and whether the orders were issued in accordance with the requirements of the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the issuance of non-bailable warrant and process under Section 82 of the Code must be based on recorded satisfaction and in compliance with the mandates of the law, as failure to do so would render the orders liable to be quashed.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ application and quashed the order of non-bailable warrant of arrest and the subsequent process under Section 82 of the Code in connection with the case.
The petitioner- Karimuddin Ansari by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has questioned the legality of the order dated 13.01.2015 by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued and also the subsequent order dated 25.02.2015 wherein the process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been issued against the petitioner in connection with B.S. City P.S. Case No.206 of 2014 instituted under Sections 420, 120B and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the informant Meena Jaiswal had shown her eagerness before a co-villager Pradeep Jaiswal to purchase a plot of land for construction of her house whereafter the said Pradeep Jaiswal along with Sanjay Kunwar @ Sanjay Kumar, Karimuddin Ansari (the petitioner) and Alim Ansari came to her Quarter and introduced the accused Sanjay Kunwar as owner of plot and also introduced this petitioner and another co-accused as property dealers. On the basis of their talk, the accused persons including petitioner entered into a written agreement with the informant to sale 5 decimals of land. The informant thereafter issued a cheque of Rs.1,01,000/- in the name of Sanjay Kunwar as part of consideration money and further issued another cheque on 03.08.2013 of Rs.1,00,000/- in the same name. The said Sanjay Kunwar after sometime insisted the informant to issue cheque in future in favour of Alim Ansari the co-accused. Thereafter, from time to time, other cheques were issued but even after several requests of the informant, sale deed was not executed. The conduct and behavior of this petitioner and other accused persons created suspicion in the mind of the informant and she apprehended that the accused persons have cheated her. Thereafter, she made enquiry from the Registry Office, Chas and came to know that the co-accused Sanjay Kunwar has already sold the land in the name of the petitioner and Alim Ansari is one of the witness of the sale deed. The informant then demanded the entire consideration amount of Rs.8,61,000/- given to the accused persons through different cheques whereafter Karimuddin Ansari returned Rs.7,30,000/- through cheque but never paid the balance amount. Hence, this complaint which was subsequently referred to police station by the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro for registration of a case and accordingly the aforesaid case was registered.
3. It appears from the order-sheet of the above case filed alongwith this writ petition that F.I.R. of this case was presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 03.07.2014 and on next date i.e. 13.01.2015 a prayer was made in writing by the Investigating Officer for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner and the same was issued and without waiting for any service report, the process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’) was issued.
4. Mr. Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the two orders by which warrant of arrest and subsequently processes were issued against this petitioner and submitted that the court below without applying its judicial mind firstly issued the non-bailable warrant and without following the mandates of Section 82 of the Code, issued processes. It was also submitted that on mere perusal of order-sheets of the two dates 13.01.2015 and 25.02.2015, it would appear that both the orders are non-speaking and were issued in a mechanical manner, therefore, both the orders are liable to be quashed.
5. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel representing the State submitted that after filing of an application by the Investigating Officer for issuance of warrant of arrest as the petitioner was evading his arrest, the court below issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest and the subsequent order of issuance of process was also issued on a petition filed by the Investigating Officer with the execution repor
