Dr. Hari Krishna Budhia @ Budhiya And Others vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2-D.V.C.

After some arguments, Mr. Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.213/2007, corresponding to G.R. No.1658/2007, T.R. No.64/2014, pending in the Court of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Hazaribagh including the order taking cognizance dated 11.11.2018 is concerned, he seeks permission to withdraw that prayer with liberty to take all the grounds at appropriate stage. He confines his prayer for quashing of the orders dated 20.11.2010 and 28.11.2014, whereby, non-bailable warrant of arrest and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been directed to be issued against the petitioners. He submits that these orders were already annexed with the main petition, however, inadvertently the prayer was not made and, therefore, I.A. No.1242 of 2019 had been filed for amendment in the prayer portion of the petition, which was allowed vide order dated 07.02.2022. He submits that in absence of any execution of warrant, the order dated 20.11.2010 has been passed. He further submits that the order dated 28.11.2014 is also mechanical one. On these grounds, he submits that at least, these two orders are not in accordance with law and the same may kindly be set aside.

Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for D.V.C. submits that the said orders are in accordance with law and at this stage, this Court may not allow that prayer.

In view of the above, the prayer with regard to quashing of the entire criminal proceedings is withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to take all the grounds at appropriate stage.

The Court finds that in the order dated 25.02.2010, it has been recorded by the learned Court that the summon has not been served upon the petitioners, however, vide order dated 23.04.2010, notice has been issued upon the bailers of the petitioners. The order dated 11.06.2010 further speaks that notice has not been served upon the bailers. The order dated 12.08.2010 speaks that one of the bailer was already left for his heavenly abode. Thereafter, the matter was transferred to another Court and vide order dated 20.11.2010, the bail of the petitioners was cancelled. If the above orders speak that summon was not served and one of the bailer had left for his heavenly abode, the learned Court was required to give further opportunity and thereafter to only cancel the bail, which is lacking in the case in hand.

The Court perused the order dated 28.11.2014. By the said order, the satisfaction of the Court is not recorded, which is one of the parameters to pass such order under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Even the date and time of appearance is not disclosed in the said order, which is statutory in view of Form-IV of Cr.P.C., as has been held in the case of Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam v. The State of Jharkhand; [(2020) 2 JLJR 712.

In view of the above facts, the orders dated 20.11.2010 and 28.11.2014 passed in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.213/2007, corresponding to G.R. No.1658/2007, T.R. No.64/2014, pending in the Court of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Hazaribagh are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Court to proceed afresh, in accordance with law.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.