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
23 paragraphs · 407 wordsSanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
Heard Mr. Aashish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the State.
This 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.
This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.10.2017 and 23.10.2017 whereby processes under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C have been
directed to be issued against the petitioner and order dated 09.01.2018 is also under challenge whereby the petitioner has been declared absconder and
permanent warrant of arrest has been issued under section 299 Cr.P.C against the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cognizance was taken on 21.03.2014. He submits that without ascertaining as to whether the
service report of summons is on the record or not all of a sudden, processes under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C have been issued by order dated
13.10.2017 and 23.10.2017 respectively. He submits that thereafter order dated 09.01.2018 has been issued under section 299 Cr.P.C.
Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has justified the orders dated 13.10.2017 and 23.10.2017 and the
order dated 09.01.2018.
On perusal of the record, it transpires that service of summons upon the petitioner and thereafter processes under section 82 and 83 have been
issued by order dated 13.10.2017 and 23.10.2017 respectively. In the said order there is no indication of Form-IV of Cr.P.C as it is held by this Court
in the case of “Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam and Others v. The State of Jharkhand†reported in 2020 2 JLJR 712. If the first order itself is illegal,
then the subsequent order dated 23.10.2017 and 09.01.2018 will also not survive in the eye of law.
The orders dated 13.10.2017 and 23.10.2017 and the order dated 09.01.2018 are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda to proceed afresh strictly in terms of Cr.P.C and the judgment of this Court passed in the case of “Md. Rustam
Alam @ Rustam and Others†(supra).
Cr.M.P. No. 515 of 2021 stands disposed of.
I.A., if any, stands disposed of.