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

2022 Supreme(Jhk) 1444

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Anita Devi, wife of Jagarnath Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 3511 of 2021
Decided on : 28-01-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liberty of a petitioner should not be taken away if the remedy is available under the Cr.P.C., and any order directing the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. should be well-founded and based on proper legal reasoning.

Headnote:

Quashing - Order under Section 82 Cr.P.C. - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition to quash the order dated 24.11.2021, which directed the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. to be issued against the petitioner in a pending case.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order dated 24.11.2021 was not well-founded as there was no finding of the concerned court about evading arrest by the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier availed the remedy under the Cr.P.C. and the court concluded that the liberty of the petitioner had been taken away without proper legal basis.

Issues: The main issue was the validity of the order directing the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner, and whether the petitioner had been able to avail the remedy under the Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that if the remedy is available to the petitioner under the Cr.P.C., liberty is not required to be taken away. The court also highlighted that the petitioner had not been able to avail further remedy in view of the order, and the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was directed to be issued against the petitioner without proper legal basis.

Final Decision: The impugned order dated 24.11.2021 was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the concerned court to proceed afresh in accordance with the law. The petition was allowed and disposed of in favor of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This petition has been taken 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 defects are ignored.

4. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.11.2021 passed in Basal P.S. Case No.21 of 2021, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, by which the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner.

5. Mr. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 24.11.2021 has been passed on the strength of the order dated 23.09.2021. He further submits that the order dated 23.09.2021 is itself bad in law. By way of placing the order dated 23.09.2021, he submits that there is no finding to the effect that the petitioner was tried to evade. He also submits that the police is already having power to arrest any person in absence of bail or in absence of warrant of arrest also. He further submits that the petitioner has earlier availed the remedy under the Cr.P.C. and she has filed A.B.P. No.494 of 2021, which was rejected on 17.11.2021 and vide order dated 24.11.2021, the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner and she was not able to avail the remedy to file anticipatory bail application before the High Court.

6. Mr. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the order dated 24.11.2021 is well founded order and no interference is required by this Court.

7. The Court has perused the order dated 23.09.2021 whereby non-bailable warrant has been directed to be issued against the petitioner. There is no finding of the concerned court about evading of arrest by the petitioner. The petitioner has earlier availed the remedy under the Cr.P.C. and she has filed A.B.P. No.494 of 2021 before the court below, which was rejected on 17.11.2021 and vide order dated 24.11.2021, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to avail further remedy in view of that order. It is well settled that if the remedy is available to the petitioner under the Cr.P.C., liberty is not required to be taken in such a way. The said anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner was rejected on 17.11.2021, copy of which was received in the court below on 24.11.2021 and vide order dated 24.11.2021, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been directed to be issued against the petitioner on the same day and liberty of the petitioner has been taken away, as provided under the Cr.P.C.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.11.2021 passed in connection with Basal P.S. Case No.21 of 2021, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh is, hereby, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned court to proceed afresh, in accordance with law.

9. Accordingly, this 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