Rajnikant Mahto vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard Ms. Supriya Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for 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.

The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 19.09.2020 whereby process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 25 of 2019, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M, Palamau at Daltonganj.

Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that there is no service report of N.B.W. and in absence of that the impugned order has been passed merely on the application of the I.O. She submits that the parameters prescribed for issuing process under sections 82 Cr.P.C as prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been followed. She submits that direction issued in the case of Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam & Ors. V. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2020 (2) JLJR 712 has not been followed. She submits that in Form-IV of the Cr.P.C. specified place and time is not there.

From perusal of impugned order, it transpires that the execution report of N.B.W. was not there and only on the application of I.O., process of 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued. Moreover, parameters of Cr.P.C. and guidelines issued in Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam (supra), has not been followed.

In that view of the matter, impugned order dated 19.09.2020 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the court below to proceed strictly in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Md. Rustam Alam @ Rustam (supra).

With the above observation and direction, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.