SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Jhk) 363

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Rajan Raj Bharti, S/o Vinay Kumar Panjiyara – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 515 of 2021
Decided on : 02-08-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, APP

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – 299,82 and 83 - Proclamation for person absconding – Offences complained of can his absence - Petition has been filed for quashing order whereby processes under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C have been directed to be issued against petitioner and order is also under challenge whereby petitioner has been declared absconder and permanent warrant of arrest has been issued under section 299 Cr.P.C against petitioner - Whether service report of summons is on record or not all of a sudden, processes under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C have been issued by order respectively - He submits that thereafter order has been issued under section 299 Cr.P.C – Held, On perusal of record, it transpires that service of summons upon petitioner and thereafter processes under section 82 and 83 have been issued by order respectively - Court said order there is no indication of Form of Cr.P.C as it is held by Court in case - First order itself is illegal, then subsequent order and will also not survive in eye of law - orders and order are quashed and matter is remitted back to court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, to proceed afresh strictly in terms of Cr.P.C and judgment of Court pass - Cr.M.P. disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Aashish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.10.2017 and 23.10.2017 whereby processes under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C have been directed to be issued against the petitioner and order dated 09.01.2018 is also under challenge whereby the petitioner has been declared absconder and permanent warrant of arrest has been issued under section 299 Cr.P.C against the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cognizance was taken on 21.03.2014. He submits that without ascertaining as to whether the service report of summons is on the record or not all of a sudden, processes under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C have been issued by order dated 13.10.2017 and 23.10.2017 respectively. He submits that thereafter order dated 09.01.2018 has been issued under section 299 Cr.P.C.

5. Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has justified the orders dated 13.10.2017 and 23.10.2017 and the order dated 09.01.2018.

6. On perusal of the record, it transpires that service of summons upon the petitioner and thereafter processes under section 82 and 83 have been issued by order dated 13.10.2017 and 23.10.2017 respectively. In the said order there is no indication of Form-IV of Cr.P.C as it is held by this Court in the case of “Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam and Others v. The State of Jharkhand” reported in 2020 2 JLJR 712. If the first order itself is illegal, then the subsequent order dated 23.10.2017 and 09.01.2018 will also not survive in the eye of law.

7. The orders dated 13.10.2017 and 23.10.2017 and the order dated 09.01.2018 are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda to proceed afresh strictly in terms of Cr.P.C and the judgment of this Court passed in the case of “Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam and Others” (supra).

8. Cr.M.P. No. 515 of 2021 stands disposed of.

9. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top