Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J
Rajesh Dey Dalal @ Pintu – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ORDER :
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the apart from the other prayer instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 19.03.2019 whereby, the learned S.D.J.M., Chaibasa at West Singhbhum has issued process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner without service of summons as well as execution of warrant of arrest and without recording any reasons as stipulated in the concerned proclamation. The learned trial court has also ignored the principles laid down by this court in the leading judgment passed in “Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. versus The State of Jharkhand” Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 dated 27.04.2020. It is further submitted that the learned trial court appears to be confused about the nature of processes to be issued chronologically in criminal cases. It is obvious that summons was issued, but never served upon the petitioner and no service report is available on record. Thereafter, in a mechanical manner non-bailable warrant of arrest as well as process under Section 82 of Cr.P.
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.
Non-bailable warrant of arrest and process under section 82 Cr.P.C. must comply with the legal parameters and guidelines established in relevant judgments, including the indication of time and place.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper satisfaction and compliance with legal parameters before issuing non-bailable warrants and authorizing detention.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements in issuing warrants, highlighting the importance of service reports and judicial discretion.
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 non-bailable warrants and proclamations must comply with legal requirements, including recording satisfaction of evasion and specifying time and place for appearance.
The issuance of non-bailable warrants and proclamations must comply with legal standards, including recorded satisfaction of evasion and specification of time and place for appearance.
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.
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
