IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 609 of 2026 Matan Yadav @ Madan Yadav, aged about 75 years, Son of Late Huni Yadav, Resident of Village –Bidra, P.O. –Ambara, P.S. –Pipratand, District –Palamau. .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY …..

For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, Addl. P.P.

…..

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 18.05.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in connection with Panki P.S. Case No.60 of 2001 whereby and where under, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau has issued the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C inter-alia against the petitioner.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued vide the said order dated 18.05.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in connection with Panki P.S. Case No.60 of 2001 without following the due process of law and without concealing himself to evade his arrest; which is a sine qua non for without fixing any time or place for the appearance of the petitioner, who is the accused person of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that the very fact that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has issued the proclamation under Section 82 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 was justification for issuance of such proclamation. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials 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, absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest nor fixed any time or place for appearance of the petitioner who is the accused person of this case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau has committed a gross Cr.P.C. without complying the mandatory requirements of law. Hence, the same is not sustainable in law and the continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the order dated 18.05.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in connection with Panki P.S. Case No.60 of 2001 whereby and where under, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau has issued the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C inter-alia against the petitioner be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.

6. Accordingly, the order dated 18.05.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau in connection with Panki P.S. Case No.60 of 2001 whereby and where under, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau has issued the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C inter-alia against the petitioner, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.

7. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau may pass a fresh ord