Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Kamal Sao, S/o. Late Chito Sao - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Cr. M.P. No. 480 of 2022
Decided On : 21-04-2022
Quashing - Process under section 82 Cr.P.C. - The court quashed the order for process under section 82 Cr.P.C. issued against the petitioner, finding that it was issued in haste and remitted the matter back to the court concerned to proceed afresh in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition for quashing the order dated 22.01.2022, which had issued process under section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in Koderma P.S. Case No. 161 of 2019.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. had been issued in haste and quashed the order, remitting the matter back to the court concerned to proceed afresh in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issue was whether the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. issued against the petitioner was valid and in accordance with the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the timing of the issuance of the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. in relation to the previous order for N.B.W. and the absence of the service report of notice under section 41(A) Cr.P.C., and found that the process had been issued in haste.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order for process under section 82 Cr.P.C. issued against the petitioner and remitted the matter back to the court concerned to proceed afresh in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Randhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, learned counsel for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 22.01.2022 passed in Koderma P.S. Case No. 161 of 2019 whereby process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
3. Mr. Randhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 13.12.2021 N.B.W. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner and just after seven days on 21.12.2021 prayer has been made to issue process under section 82 Cr.P.C and by order dated 22.01.2022 process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has filed anticipatory bail application but since process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued the said anticipatory bail application has been dismissed as not maintainable.
4. Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
5. On perusal of record, it transpires that on 13.12.2021 N.B.W. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner and just after seven days on 21.12.2021 prayer has been made to issue process under section 82 Cr.P.C and by order dated 22.01.2022 process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner. Order dated 17.01.2022 suggests that service report of notice under section 41(A) Cr.P.C. was not produced by the I.O. that is why court concerned has called for explanation from the I.O. as to what circumstance, he has not produced service report of notice under section 41(A) Cr.P.C.
6. In view of the above facts and considering that process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued in haste, order dated 22.01.2022 passed in Koderma P.S. Case No. 161 of 2019 whereby process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, is hereby quashed.
7. The matter is remitted back to the court concerned to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
AI
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
