The central legal point established in the judgment is that the power to issue arrest warrants must be exercised judiciously and not in a mechanical way, and must consider the nature and seriousness of the offense involved.

The petitioners by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have prayed to quash the order dated 03.01.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. Case no. 4492 of 2014 arising out of Patratu P.S. Case no. 270 of 2014 whereby the warrant of arrest have been issued against the petitioners and also the order dated 25.03.2015 of the same court whereby the processes have been issued against the petitioners without complying the mandates of the above two provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’).

2. To put in short the relevant facts, necessary for the purposes of adjudication of the points involved in this writ application, is that; at the instance of the respondent no.2-the informant Upendra Prasad Sah, the aforesaid case was instituted on the ground that marriage of his daughter was fixed with Sandeep Kumar, son of Amrendra Ram Das @ Arvind Ram Das- the petitioner no.1, whereafter he paid a sum of Rs.51,000/- cash to the petitioner no.1 and the date of engagement was fixed in July, 2014 but later on again the petitioners on different occasions demanded Cash, vehicle and jewelry and also extended the date of engagement and threatened that if the demands are not fulfilled, they will postpone the marriage. Whereafter the aforesaid case was lodged under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. It appears from the order sheet of the aforesaid case that after institution of the case on 7.11.2014, the case was fixed for 12.02.2015 for submission of final form but before that on 03.01.2015, the Investigating Officer filed an application before the learned Magistrate for issuance of warrant of arrest of the petitioners and other accused persons and the same was issued. Subsequent thereto vide order dated 25.03.2015, prayer was made by the Investigating Officer to issue process under Section 82 of the Code against the petitioners and the same was also issued.

4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the order dated 03.01.2015 by which warrant of arrest was issued against these petitioners clearly stipulates the non-application of judicial mind of the court below as it was passed without following the mandates of Section 73 of the Code as well as the mandates given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Indra Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttranchal & Ors.; (2007) 12 SCC 1. It was also submitted that without recording any satisfaction or without following the mandates of Section 82 of the Code on the very next date, the court below on a requisition filed by the Investigating Officer issued processes. Hence both the orders being without application of judicial mind and non-speaking are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further relying on an interlocutory application bearing no. 3674 of 2015 prayed to the Court to allow amendment in paragraph 11 of the writ application, which has been necessiated because the process under Section 83 of the Code had also been issued against the petitioners before filing of this writ application though the petitioners had no knowledge of issuance of such process under Section 83 of the Code by the court below.

5. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel representing the State seriously contended that as the petitioners were evading their arrest, the requisition was filed by the Investigating Officer for issuance of warrant of arrest and subsequently on the requisition filed by the Investigating Officer, the processes were issued. It was also submitted that the Process under Section 83 of the Code was issued prior to the filing of this writ application but the petitioner had suppressed the material facts and subsequently filed an interlocutory application for amendment in the prayer portion and since the petitioner has suppressed the material facts from this Court,