CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Aman Singh @ Aman Kumar And Ors vs State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 25 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 JH CK 0201

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 82
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 538 of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 377 words
1.

Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-State.

2.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3.

The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 19.12.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Parsudih P.S. Case No.18 of 2019, by which, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Has been issued against the petitioners.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioners without following the procedure as prescribed in the Cr.P.C. and other judgments of the Court particularly the judgment passed in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand , reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712.

5.

Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order on the ground that the concerned police officer has tried to apprehend the petitioners and, thereafter, the impugned order has been passed.

6.

On perusal of the order dated 19.12.2020, it transpires that although the statement is there that the concerned police officer has tried to apprehend the petitioners, but it is not disclosed on which date the raid was made by the I.O. at the house of the petitioners for apprehending them. Moreover, there is no mention of time and place of appearance in light of Form-4 Cr.P.C., which is against the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam (supra).

7.

Accordingly, the order dated 19.12.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in Parsudih P.S. Case No.18 of 2019 is quashed.

8.

The matter is remitted back to the court below to proceed afresh in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam (supra), in accordance with law.

9.

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.