IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Anuradha Kumari @ Anuradha D/o Mahendra Kumar Swarnkar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. M.P. No. 1418 of 2023
Decided On : 01-03-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 82 and 83 - Proclamation and attachment orders - Orders quashed for non-compliance with mandatory requirements of law - Court must record satisfaction of absconding status and specify time/place for appearance in proclamation - Attachment order invalid without property description and reasons. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
(B) Abuse of process - Continuation of invalid orders amounts to abuse of process of law. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash orders of proclamation and attachment issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, arguing non-compliance with legal requirements.
Findings of Court:
The court found the orders invalid due to lack of necessary legal compliance.
Issues: The main issue was whether the orders complied with the legal requirements of Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of recording satisfaction and specifying details in orders under Sections 82 and 83, holding that failure to do so renders the orders invalid.
Result: Orders quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. Though 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 several orders but at the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners abandons the other prayers and confines his prayer only to quash the orders dated 27.11.2015 and 24.06.2016 whereby and where under proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and the attachment order of property under Section 83 Cr.P.C. respectively have been passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in Sessions Trial No. 225 of 2019 arising out of Sahebganj (T) P.S. Case No. 184 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 588 of 2014.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued vide order dated 27.11.2015 without following the due process of law. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that inadvertently, because of clerical error, in the prayer portion instead of the petitioners seeking the prayer to quash the order dated 27.11.2015 has erroneously mentioned that they seek to quash the order dated 13.05.2016. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj while passing the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has not recorded the satisfaction that the petitioners are absconding or concealing themselves to evade their arrest which is a sine qua non for issuing proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that vide order dated 24.06.2016, order for attachment of the property of the accused persons of the case including the petitioners has been issued under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. without mentioning the property to be attached and without recording any reason for issuing such attachment order. Hence, it is submitted that the orders dated 27.11.2015 and 24.06.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in Sessions Trial No. 225 of 2019 arising out of Sahebganj (T) P.S. Case No. 184 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 588 of 2014; being not in accordance with law, be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the orders dated 27.11.2015 and 24.06.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in Sessions Trial No. 225 of 2019 arising out of Sahebganj (T) P.S. Case No. 184 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 588 of 2014 and submits that the very fact that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj 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, Sahibganj 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.
5. 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 the court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. must record its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is made, is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest and in case the court decides to issue proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., it must mention the time and place for appearance of the petitioner in the order itself by which the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is issued. As already indicated above since the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj has neither recorded its satisfaction that the petitioners are absconding or concealing themselves to evade their arrest nor fixed any time or place for appearance of
Court must comply with mandatory requirements of law when issuing orders under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C., or such orders will be quashed.
Proclamation and attachment orders under Cr.P.C. must comply with mandatory legal requirements, including recording satisfaction of absconding status and specifying time/place for appearance.
Mandatory legal requirements must be adhered to when issuing proclamations and attachment orders under the Code of Criminal Procedure, or they will be quashed as illegal.
A court issuing a proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. must record satisfaction that the accused is absconding and cannot issue attachment orders without proper justification.
Issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 of the CrPC requires specified grounds, including recorded satisfaction of absconding status and time/place details; failure to follow these mandates rende....
Proclamation issued under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must meet legal requirements, including recording satisfaction of the accused's status and fixing time and place for appearance.
The Magistrate must substantiate satisfaction with evidence before issuing a proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C., and routine issuance of such orders is impermissible.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.