JUDGMENT: D.K. Sinha, J. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of their entire criminal proceedings and the order by which warrant of arrest and subsequently processes under Sections 82/83, Code of Criminal Procedure were issued on 22.1.2011, 7.2.2011 and 22.3.2011 respectively in G.R. No.407 of 2010, arising out of Pathargama P.S. Case No.51 of 2010 for the alleged offence under Sections 302/201/34, Indian Penal Code. 2. Main contentions of the petitioners are that arrest warrant were issued against them without service of summons and subsequently without awaiting for the execution report of their arrest warrant, processes were issued by proclaiming them offender and thereafter about a month, attachment order was issued by the CJM, Godda under Section 83, Code of Criminal Procedure without there being any execution report of the process under Section 82, Code of Criminal Procedure on the record and according to the learned senior counsel, Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, it tantamounts to misuse of the process of the Court. 3. Prosecution story in short was that the informant-father of the victim girl by presenting a written report before the Pathargama police stated that he had married his daughter Moni Devi with one Shankar Jha on 1.3.2002. Shankar Jha was four brothers who had been extending torture to his daughter for dowry, which was communicated to him time to time but he tried to pacify the matter. His son-in-law Shankar Jha since was partially mentally retarded, all the named accused persons after demolishing the residential house of his son-in-law constructed a new pucca building thereon, which was opposed by his daughter Moni Devi and in retaliation, it was alleged that Chhotu Jha, who was the son of the elder brother of his son-in-law, had forcibly ravished her. When she wanted to lodge a case for the alleged occurrence she was pressurized by all the accused persons not to do so. In the meantime, conspiracy was hatched and at the instance of the co-accused Dharmendra Jha, his son-in-law left his home village and went to Kahalgaon. The informant was informed on his cell phone in the night of 26.3.2010 that his daughter Moni had committed suicide. In the meantime, conspiracy was hatched and at the instance of the co-accused Dharmendra Jha, his son-in-law left his home village and went to Kahalgaon. The informant was informed on his cell phone in the night of 26.3.2010 that his daughter Moni had committed suicide. He rushed to Maheshpur on the subsequent day at about 11:00 a.m. and found his daughter dead, whose body was partly burnt, including hair and saree and smell of kerosene oil was found emanating from the dead body. Her two children were not allowed to meet the informant and on the basis of the written report, Pathargama P.S. Case No.51 of 2010 was registered against the named accused persons for the alleged offence under Sections 302/201/34, Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned senior counsel Mr. Jha submitted that the petitioners were not named in the FIR and they were not related to the named accused persons nearly or remotely and the requisition was made by the Investigating Officer without any memo of evidence. 5. Mr. Jha further submitted that the case was registered under Sections 302/201/34, Indian Penal Code and the informant nowhere alleged the complicity of the petitioners in his report, but the CJM, Godda without exercising his judicial mind, issued processes, as aforesaid, without demanding memo of evidence against the petitioners on the simple application that the complicity of the petitioners appeared during course of investigation. Certified copies of the relevant orders, by which all the three processes were issued, have been brought on the record and it is nowhere mentioned, in any of the order-sheets, that the CJM having been prima facie satisfied with the materials, placed before him, against the petitioners, passed the orders for issuance of the processes. 6. Finally, Mr. Jha submitted that the petitioners had preferred anticipatory bail before this Court in A.B.A. No.1073 of 2011, which has been rejected. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the CJM, Godda without disclosing his subjective satisfaction on the application of judicial mind, issued the processes aforesaid against the petitioners. Even there is no whispering that any memo of evidence was produced disclosing the complicity of the petitioners before the CJM in support of the applications for issuance of the processes. 8. Even there is no whispering that any memo of evidence was produced disclosing the complicity of the petitioners before the CJM in support of the applications for issuance of the processes. 8. I find that the petitioners are not named in the FIR and the informant was silent about their complicity but I do not find any illegality in issuing the processes against the petitioners if at all they are evading their arrest. I find that the petitioners moved before this Court by filing anticipatory bail application which was rejected. The processes may be issued against the accused who are not named in the FIR provided there were materials collected against them during course of investigation and brought before the Court for their arrestation or otherwise. 9. In the circumstances, I direct the petitioners (1) Manoj Kumar Jha @ Manoj Jha (2) Shashikar Jha @ Pinki Jha to surrender in the court-below within fifteen days of this order and on their presentation of a petition under Section 437, Code of Criminal Procedure, it may be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. 10. With these observations, this petition is dismissed.