Jai Kishore Choudhary vs State of Jharkhand

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J

Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance.

This petition has been filed for the following relief:

"For quashing the entire criminal prosecution including the order dated 20.11.2010 whereby warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner and the order dated 20.01.2011 whereby the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C has been issued by the court of Special Judge cum Additional Judicial Commissioner, Vigilance Court, Ranchi in connection with Special Case No.48/2010 arising out of Khunti P.S. Case No.97/2010 lodged by the opposite party no.2 under Sections 161/406/409/420/467/468/471 & 34 of I.P.C and Section 7 & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, now pending in the court of Special Judge, Ranchi."

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument has submitted that he is not pressing his prayer so far as quashing of entire criminal prosecution against the petitioner is concerned. However, he is confining his relief to the order dated 20.11.2010 whereby warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner and also order dated 20.01.2011 whereby the process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C has been issued against the petitioner by the learned court below. Learned counsel has referred to para 39 and 40 of the present petition to submit that the petitioner had always remained present at his place of posting at Madhupur and there was no occasion for the petitioner to avoid any summon issued by the opposite party and he submits that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation. He further submits that the learned court below has not recorded the necessary satisfaction for the purposes of issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner and also for the purposes of issuance of order issuing process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel has referred to the order issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner dated 20.11.2010 wherein, the submission of the opposite party has been recorded that the accused persons are concealing themselves from arrest, but no independent satisfaction of the court below has been recorded. He also refers to the order issuing process under Section 82 Cr.P.C and by referring to the said order, he submits that in the said order, no satisfaction of the court at all has been recorded calling for issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel has referred to a judgment passed by this Court reported in 2016 SCC online Jhar 1841 (Sunil Kr. Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand) and submits that it has been held by this Court following the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a note of caution was put that courts have to be extra cautious and careful while directing issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest and in any view of the matter, subjective satisfaction of learned court should be indicated in the order itself and absence of the same would render such order being illegal and not in accordance with law.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand opposes the prayer, but he is not in a position to dispute that the necessary satisfaction for issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner and thereafter process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C, has not been recorded by the learned court below. The learned counsel submits that at least the petitioner should be directed to immediately appear before the Investigation Officer for the purposes of recording of his statement to ensure that the petitioner may cooperate with the investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that he is ready to appear before the Anti-Corruption Bureau at Ranchi on any date as may be fixed by this Court.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the impugned orders by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner and a process under Section 82 of Cr. P.C has been issued against the petitioner, this Court finds that the learned court below has not recorded the necessary satisfaction for the purposes of issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest as well as proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. The case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment relied upon by the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncement and argument advanced by the parties, the impugned order dated 20.11.2010 for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner and the impugned order dated 20.01.2011 by which proclamation under Section 82 Cr.PC has been issued against the petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside. The learned court is at liberty to proceed in the matter as per law. However, since the petitioner has himself agreed to appear before the Anti-corruption Bureau on a date that may be fixed by this Court, the petitioner is directed to appear before Anti-corruption Bureau on 12.02.2020. Upon his appearance, the Officer of Anti-corruption Bureau shall proceed in accordance with law.

Accordingly, this petition is hereby disposed of.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed as not pressed.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX.