Shabbir Ali vs State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defects in course of day, except defect No. 9(iv), which is hereby ignored. Heard the parties.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 26-3-2015 and also the order dated 23.4.2015 passed in Special Case No. 33 of 2011 (Vigilance P.S. Case No. 24 of 2011), whereby and whereunder, warrant of arrest and also the process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. have been ordered to be issued to be executed against the petitioner on the address shown as Md. Sabir Ali, S/o. Md. Hussain Ansari, R/o Kelabagan, PO and PS Madhupur, District Deoghar, but the process issued under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. never seems to have been effected on that address as from the service report, it would appear that it has been effected in the house said to be of the petitioner situated at Village-Pipra, PS-Margomunda and thereby the process issued under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. cannot be said to have been effected on the correct address of the petitioner and thereby the proclamation made under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is quite bad and at the same time, the order, under which warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner, is also wrong.

As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance, submits that the warrant of arrest has been issued on the address, which has been supplied by the department which address presumably would have been supplied by the petitioner to the department and thereby it cannot be said that on the wrong address warrant of arrest and also the process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued and that when the dispute has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that whether he is the resident of village Kelabagan or Pipra, it cannot be decided at this stage.

It is true that the disputed question of fact cannot be decided in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and as such, I need not to go into that issue.

However, it does appear that the process under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. has been issued for effecting it on the address given as Md. Sabir Ali, Assistant Engineer, S/o. Md. Hussain Ansari, Sakin-Kelabagan, PO + PS Madhupur but from the execution report of the process issued under S. 82 of Cr.P.C., it does appear that the process under S. 82 of Cr.P.C. had been issued on the address shown as Village-Pipra, PS-Margomunda, District-Deoghar. Under the circumstances, any order proclaiming the petitioner as absconder and also the subsequent order for issuance of process under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. are certainly bad and hence those orders are set aside.

So far the order dated 26.3.2015, under which warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner, I do not find any illegality with that order. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.