IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Indrajeet Kaur @ Monalisha, w/o Birendra Kashyap and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Opposite Parties
Cr.M.P. No. 2077 of 2015
Decided On : 04-10-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 82 and 83- Proclamation for person absconding – Quash of criminal Proceedings - The husband of complainant was employee of Tata Steel Ltd., retired from service - Complainant/informant alleged that Indrajeet Kaur @ Monalisha run a beauty parlour in name and style of Monalisha Beauty Parlour, she further alleged that she used to visit occasionally at beauty parlour therefore complainant and Monalisha became friend - She further alleged that Birendra Kashyap who is husband of Monalisha also used to come at Beauty Parlour where both wife and husband learnt that two sons of complainant are residing abroad and they are earning handsome salary. It is further alleged that once husband of Monalisha told complainant, he runs an investment consultant and deals in shares, debentures and mutual funds - Held, Opposite party no.2 has already withdrawn earlier complaint and reasons have been explained in paragraph no.10 of counter affidavit - Since cognizance order is not under challenge, judgments relied on point of second complaint are not helping petitioners - There has to be material before Court to reach at aforesaid conclusion. Without recording such subjective satisfaction to effect that accused is also evading his arrest, which should be on basis of materials placed before Court, warrant of arrest cannot be issued - This satisfaction can be derived from police paper/ case diary - Mere absence of the accused cannot give rise to a presumption that he is evading arrest, which in turn cannot be sole ground to issue warrant of arrest - Matter is remitted back to concerned court to proceed afresh in accordance with law – Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Rupesh Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.
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. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the entire criminal proceeding and orders dated 18.08.2015 and 31.08.2015 in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No.50 of 2015, G.R.No.923 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur, whereby warrant of arrest and process under section 82 Cr.P.C. I.A. No.6911 of 2015 was filed for challenging the order dated 28.11.2015 whereby process under Section 83 Cr.P.C has been issued against the petitioners. The said I.A was allowed by order dated 27.01.2016 and the said I.A was directed to be treated as a part of the main application. All these orders have been challenged by the petitioners.
4. The complaint was filed stating therein that-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.