Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Khusboo Gupta @ Khushboo Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 10.05.2022 whereby process under section 82 has been directed to be issued against the petitioner in connection with Saraidhela P.S. Case No. 35 of 2022, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
3. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that for the dispute between families, all the family members have been made accused even ladies members have not been left. He further submits that it is not a case where petitioners are evading their arrest rather the petitioners have taken recourse under the Cr.P.C. by filing A.B.P. and A.B.A. before the learned court below and before this Hon’ble Court but during pendency of A.B.A., process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioners. He further submits that F.I.R. was lodged on 17.02.2022 and the petitioners have moved A.B.P. on 04.03.2022. The said A.B.P. was transferred to another Court and was heard in which case diary was called for by the court below thereafter it h
The court considered the petitioners' legal recourse under the Cr.P.C. and the timing of the order in deciding to quash the order directing process under section 82.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. should not be issued in haste and must be in accordance with the law.
The issuance of processes under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. must adhere to legal procedures, requiring judicial application and proper service of summons.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with mandatory provisions of law for the issuance of proclamation and process under Section 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C.
The deliberate misuse of bail and failure to challenge previous orders can justify the issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., while the lack of reason and material can lead to the setting a....
The absence of execution report and lack of satisfaction recorded by the concerned court were crucial in the court's decision to quash the orders.
Orders under Section 82 Cr.P.C. must not be issued mechanically; accused should be given the opportunity to appear before the court to avoid being treated as absconders.
Failure to follow statutory parameters under Section 82 Cr.P.C. can lead to the quashing of an order directing process, as established in previous judgments.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
