IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the issuance of proclamation under Section 82 and attachment of property under Section 83 must comply with the mandatory requirements of law, including recording the satisfaction of the accused's absconding or concealing and providing reasons for the attachment of property.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the orders dated 13.04.2022, 27.04.2022 and 12.04.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in Latehar P.S. Case No. 112 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 500 of 2010 registered for the offence punishable under Section 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar whereby and where under cognizance under Sections 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken, non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued and processes under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. have been issued against the petitioner, respectively.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not press this Cr. M.P. to quash the order dated 13.04.2022 and confines his prayer to quash the orders dated 27.04.2022 and 12.04.2023 passed in the said case.

4. The brief facts of the case is that on 27.04.2022, the petitioner who was the accused of the said Latehar P.S. Case No. 112 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 500 of 2010 was absent in the court. The execution repot of the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner was not received. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar without recording its satisfaction as to whether the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to avoid his arrest, passed order for issue of proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. without fixing the time and place for the petitioner to appear.

5. Perusal of the order dated 12.04.2023 reveals that the petitioner who was the accused of the said case, was not present. The Execution Report of the S/A, B/W, NBW and the process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was not received still the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered for issue of attachment of the property of the petitioner/accused under Section 83 of Cr.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued vide order dated 27.04.2022 without following the due process of law and without recording the satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to avoid his arrest which is a sine qua non for issuing proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and without any information available in the record that the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was ever made, passed order for attachment of the property of the petitioner under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. without mentioning the property to be attached. Hence, it is submitted that the orders dated 27.04.2022 and 12.04.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in Latehar P.S. Case No. 112 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 500 of 2010 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar; being not in accordance with law, be quashed and set aside.

7. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the orders dated 27.04.2022 and 12.04.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in Latehar P.S. Case No. 112 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 500 of 2010 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar and submits that the very fact that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has issued the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and the order of attachment under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. itself shows that there were materials available in the record for the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to be satisfied that there is justification for issuance of such proclamation and proceeding. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr. M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that by now it is a settled principle of law that