IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the legality of the orders for the issue of a non-bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner, based on evidence of his evasion of arrest for a non-bailable offence under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This Cr.M.P. 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 09.06.2020 and 28.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No.139 of 2019.

3. Perusal of the record reveals that on 09.06.2020, the Investigating Officer of the said case submitted a requisition for issue of warrant of arrest against the petitioner who is an accused of the said case involving the offences punishable under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code which provide for a maximum punishment of ten years and is a cognizable offence. It was urged upon by the Investigating Officer of the case that the accused is absconding and hence, his arrest is necessary. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after going through the case-diary and the materials in the record, passed the order for issue of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. Perusal of the record further reveals that vide order dated 28.09.2020, the Investigating Officer of the case made the prayer before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar enclosing therewith the unexecuted warrant of arrest wherein it has been mentioned that on three occasions, police raided the house of the petitioner but the petitioner was absconding for fear of arrest and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after being satisfied, issued proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 2020, entire country was badly affected by COVID-19 pandemic and the petitioner was all along present in his house but he never received any notice or summon for his appearance. It is next submitted that the learned Magistrate has not followed the provisions of Section 73 and 82 of Cr.P.C. while passing the said orders and the said orders are non-speaking orders being against the settled principle of law. Hence, it is submitted that the said orders dated 09.06.2020 and 28.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No.139 of 2019 be quashed.

5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the orders dated 09.06.2020 and 28.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in connection with Chandwa P.S. Case No.139 of 2019. Drawing attention of this Court towards Section 73 of Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that Section 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages that the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class may direct a warrant to any person within his local jurisdiction for the arrest of inter alia any person who is an accused of a non-bailable offence and is evading his arrest. It is next submitted by the learned Addl.P.P. that undisputedly the petitioner was within the local jurisdiction of the learned court below and he was accused of an offence involving under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code which is a non-bailable offence and the Investigating Officer has submitted in writing before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that the petitioner is evading his arrest. Under such circumstances, there is no illegality in the order dated 09.06.2020 by which warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner.

6. So far as the order dated 28.09.2020 is concerned, learned Addl.P.P. submits that the learned Magistrate, after going through the material in the record recorded his satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding and is concealing himself to evade his arrest as he was found absconding from his house on three occasions when the police raided his house. The contention of the petitioner that he was all along present in his house cannot be treated as gospel truth more so when there is a written report submitted by a publi