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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 4337

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
KISHOR SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND – Respondent
Cr.M.P. 461 / 2024



##PAGE1##

( 2025:JHHC:38705 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No.461 of 2024

------

Kishore Sharma, son of Narayan Rana @ Narayan Sharma, aged

about 38 years, resident of village-Buchitand, Ward No.01, P.O.-

Bagro, P.S.-Koderma and District-Koderma.

… Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Praful Jojo, Addl. P.P.

------

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- 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 the prayer to quash the orders dated 21.01.2012,

10.07.2012, 12.03.2013, 11.07.2013 and 25.06.2014 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Complaint Case No.260 of 2010.

3. The brief fact of the case is that consequent upon the petitioner-

who is the accused person of the case concerned, involving the offence

punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and under

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code not appearing before the learned

trial court; the learned trial court vide orders dated 21.01.2012 and

10.07.2012 has twice issued the non-bailable warrant of arrest against

the petitioner, without recording its satisfaction that the petitioner is

1

Cr. M.P. No.461 of 2024

##PAGE2##

( 2025:JHHC:38705 )

evading his arrest and vide order dated 12.03.2013 issued proclamation

under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner without recording any

satisfaction that the petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to

evade his arrest and without fixing the time and place for appearance of

the petitioner and without receipt of the execution report of the non-

bailable warrant of arrest issued against him. Further, vide order dated

10.07.2013/ 11.07.2013, without the report of the written proclamation

under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma

has directed for issuance of process for attachment of property under

Section 83 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and lastly vide order dated

25.06.2014, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma has issued

permanent warrant of arrest against the petitioner and declared him

absconder.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said orders

dated 21.01.2012 and 10.07.2012 by which non-bailable warrant of arrest

has been issued against the petitioner is not in accordance with law and

the learned Judicial Magistrate, Koderma has failed to record any

satisfaction that the petitioner is evading his arrest. It is next submitted

that the order dated 12.03.2013 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Koderma in Complaint Case No.260 of 2010 is not

sustainable in law because the same has been issued without following

the due process of law and without recording the satisfaction that the

petitioner is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest and

that too without fixing any time and place for appearance of the

2

Cr. M.P. No.461 of 2024

##PAGE3##

( 2025:JHHC:38705 )

petitioner. Further, the said order was passed in absence of the

execution report of the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against the

petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that similarly, the

order dated 10.07.2013/11.07.2013 is also not sustainable in law as the

same has been passed without the report showing that the proclamation

under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been made.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the order

dated 25.06.2014 is concerned, though it is the condition precedent for

declaring a person absconder and issuing permanent warrant of arrest

is that, it must be proved before the court concerned, that the accused

has absconded and there is no immediate prospect of arresting him but

in this case, there being no material in the record to suggest that there is

no immediate prospect for arresting the petitioner, the learned Judicial

Magistrate committed a grave illegality in declaring him absconder and

issued perm

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