JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties through video conferencing.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. Ranchi in Vigilance Case No. 80 of 2015 whereby and whereunder, the learned court below has issued warrants of arrest against the petitioners. As during the pendency of this criminal miscellaneous petition vide order dated 25.11.2019 in the said case, on the prayer of the I.O. process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners have also been issued hence, I.A. No. 501 of 2020 has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to amend the prayer portion of this criminal miscellaneous petition by incorporating the additional prayer to quash the order dated 25.11.2019 (Annexure-6 of the said interlocutory application) by which the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued in respect of the petitioners.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of this criminal miscellaneous petition vide order dated 19.02.2020, the petitioners were directed to appear before the I.O. of the case on 02.03.2020 at 10:30 a.m. and it was also directed by the predecessor Bench that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioners till 17.03.2020 and vide order dated 17.03.2020 the interim relief granted to the petitioners was extended till 07.04.2020. It is next submitted that the petitioners, in compliance of the said order, appeared before the I.O. of the case and their statements have been recorded by the I.O. Drawing attention of this Court to Section 73(1) Cr.P.C. which reads as under:

“73. Warrant may be directed to any person - (1) The Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class may direct a warrant to any person within his local jurisdiction for the arrest of any escaped convict, proclaimed offender or of any person who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest.

(Emphasis Supplied)

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the discretion to direct a warrant to any person within his local jurisdiction for the arrest is vested with the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class in three eventualities:

(i) for the arrest of any escaped convict.

(ii) for the arrest of proclaimed offender.

(iii) for the arrest of any person who is accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading arrest.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in this case admittedly, the petitioners are neither escaped convicts nor proclaimed offenders, hence, the only way the warrant of arrest could have been directed against them is by recording a satisfaction that the petitioners are accused of any non-bailable offence and also they are evading arrest by the learned Magistrate. Drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-3 at page nos. 49-53 of the brief which is the requisition with annexure thereof, submitted by the Investigating Officer with a prayer for direction for warrant for the arrest of the petitioners, it is submitted that there is no materials or averments made in those documents, basing upon which the learned Magistrate has passed impugned order dated 05.09.2019, that the petitioners are evading arrest. It is next submitted that only because a superior authority of the I.O. has called for an explanation from the I.O. as to why he did not obtain warrant of arrest, so merely on that basis without making any effort to or approaching the petitioners to appear before him the I.O. without fulfilling the essential ingredient that the petitioners are evading the arrest, submitted the said requisition for direction of warrant for the arrest of the petitioners and the learned Magistrate also without recording his satisfaction in respect of the petitioners evading arrest has passed the said impugned order. Hence, it is sub