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) 512

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Manoj Modi, S/o Shiv Shankar Modi @ Golu Modi – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Cr.M.P. No. 1918 of 2021
Decided On : 05-10-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 82 - Proclamation for person absconding - Learned counsel for petitioner submits that vide order only on application of I.O. non-bailable warrant has been directed to be issued against petitioner - He further submits that I.O. has stated before concerned court that petitioner is trying to dispose of movable property and in spite of attempt made by I.O., petitioner has not been apprehended - On that basis, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against petitioner - Held, Learned Principal Sessions Judge only on submission of A.P.P. that petitioner is disposing of movable property, has accepted the finding of trial court. It transpires that earlier summon and bailable warrant were not served upon petitioner and just after dates, non-bailable warrant has been directed to be issued against petitioner vide order - Matter is remitted back to concerned court - Petitioner is directed to appear before concerned - If petitioner appears on said date before concerned court, concerned court shall take into consideration that petitioner appear before court now and will take decision, in accordance with law without being prejudiced by order passed by this Court today. It is desirable that if any petition is filed by petitioner, same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible - Criminal miscellaneous petition allowed and disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl. P.P. for the opposite party-State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 21.12.2020, 06.03.2021 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Giridih in Gandey P.S. Case No.23/2020, whereby, non-bailable warrant and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. respectively have been issued against the petitioner and the order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Revision No.34/2021, whereby, the criminal revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 21.12.2020 only on the application of the I.O. non-bailable warrant has been directed to be issued against the petitioner. He further submits that I.O. has stated before the concerned court that the petitioner is trying to dispose of the movable property and in spite of the attempt made by the I.O., the petitioner has not been apprehended. On that basis, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner. He also submits that the revisional court has also accepted the submission of the A.P.P. that movable property is being disposed of by the petitioner and on that basis criminal revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

4. The entire order-sheet has been annexed with the petition. The F.I.R. was received on the concerned court on 17.03.2020 and thereafter only two orders are reflected i.e. 18.03.2020 and 09.07.2020. There is no recording of finding what happened to the summon and bailable warrant. In the order dated 21.12.2020, it is not recorded that earlier summon and bailable warrant has been served upon the petitioner or not. The learned Principal Sessions Judge only on the submission of the A.P.P. that the petitioner is disposing of the movable property, has accepted the finding of the trial court. It transpires that earlier summon and bailable warrant were not served upon the petitioner and just after dates, non-bailable warrant has been directed to be issued against the petitioner vide order dated 21.12.2020.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner will appear before the concerned court on any date fixed by this Court.

6. In view of the above facts and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will appear before the concerned court, the impugned orders dated 21.12.2020, 06.03.2021 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Giridih in Gandey P.S. Case No.23/2020 and the order dated 23.07.2021 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Giridih in Cr. Revision No.34/2021 are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the concerned court. The petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned court on 12.11.2021. If the petitioner appears on the said date before the concerned court, the concerned court shall take into consideration that the petitioner appear before the court now and will take decision, in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order passed by this Court today. It is desirable that if any petition is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

7. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and disposed of.

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