ORDER : The petitioners by invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have prayed to quash the order dated 03.01.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. Case no. 4492 of 2014 arising out of Patratu P.S. Case no. 270 of 2014 whereby the warrant of arrest have been issued against the petitioners and also the order dated 25.03.2015 of the same court whereby the processes have been issued against the petitioners without complying the mandates of the above two provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’). 2. To put in short the relevant facts, necessary for the purposes of adjudication of the points involved in this writ application, is that; at the instance of the respondent no.2-the informant Upendra Prasad Sah, the aforesaid case was instituted on the ground that marriage of his daughter was fixed with Sandeep Kumar, son of Amrendra Ram Das @ Arvind Ram Das- the petitioner no.1, whereafter he paid a sum of Rs.51,000/- cash to the petitioner no.1 and the date of engagement was fixed in July, 2014 but later on again the petitioners on different occasions demanded Cash, vehicle and jewelry and also extended the date of engagement and threatened that if the demands are not fulfilled, they will postpone the marriage. Whereafter the aforesaid case was lodged under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. It appears from the order sheet of the aforesaid case that after institution of the case on 7.11.2014, the case was fixed for 12.02.2015 for submission of final form but before that on 03.01.2015, the Investigating Officer filed an application before the learned Magistrate for issuance of warrant of arrest of the petitioners and other accused persons and the same was issued. Subsequent thereto vide order dated 25.03.2015, prayer was made by the Investigating Officer to issue process under Section 82 of the Code against the petitioners and the same was also issued. 4. Mr. Subsequent thereto vide order dated 25.03.2015, prayer was made by the Investigating Officer to issue process under Section 82 of the Code against the petitioners and the same was also issued. 4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the order dated 03.01.2015 by which warrant of arrest was issued against these petitioners clearly stipulates the non-application of judicial mind of the court below as it was passed without following the mandates of Section 73 of the Code as well as the mandates given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Indra Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttranchal & Ors.; (2007) 12 SCC 1 . It was also submitted that without recording any satisfaction or without following the mandates of Section 82 of the Code on the very next date, the court below on a requisition filed by the Investigating Officer issued processes. Hence both the orders being without application of judicial mind and non-speaking are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further relying on an interlocutory application bearing no. 3674 of 2015 prayed to the Court to allow amendment in paragraph 11 of the writ application, which has been necessiated because the process under Section 83 of the Code had also been issued against the petitioners before filing of this writ application though the petitioners had no knowledge of issuance of such process under Section 83 of the Code by the court below. 5. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel representing the State seriously contended that as the petitioners were evading their arrest, the requisition was filed by the Investigating Officer for issuance of warrant of arrest and subsequently on the requisition filed by the Investigating Officer, the processes were issued. It was also submitted that the Process under Section 83 of the Code was issued prior to the filing of this writ application but the petitioner had suppressed the material facts and subsequently filed an interlocutory application for amendment in the prayer portion and since the petitioner has suppressed the material facts from this Court, they are not entitled to any relief. 6. Having heard the counsels and after going through the records, I find that the learned court below without applying his judicial mind in a mechanical way passed the order of issuance of warrant and subsequently Processes under Section 82 of the Code. 6. Having heard the counsels and after going through the records, I find that the learned court below without applying his judicial mind in a mechanical way passed the order of issuance of warrant and subsequently Processes under Section 82 of the Code. It seems that the learned court below merely on an application filed by the Investigating Officer issued warrant without recording any satisfaction. In a case Vikas Vs. State of Rajsthan; (2014) 3 SCC 321 while enumerating the circumstances in which a non-bailable warrant can be issued and also considering the judgment of of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr.(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 17 held as follows:- “17. In the legislative history for the purposes of bail, the terms “bailable” and “non-bailable” are mostly used to formally distinguish one of the two classes of cases viz. “bailable” offences in which bail may be claimed as a right in every case whereas the question of grant of bail in non-bailable offence to such a person is left by the legislature in the court’s discretion to be exercised on a consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances of a given case. The discretion has, of course, to be a judicial one informed by tradition methodised by analogy, disciplined by system and subordinated to the primordial necessity of order in social life. Another such instance of judicial discretion is the issue of non-bailable warrant in a complaint case under an application of Section 319 CrPC. The power under Section 319 CrPC being discretionary must be exercised judiciously within extreme care and caution. The court should properly balance both personal liberty and societal interest before issuing warrants. There cannot be any straitjacket formula for issuance of warrants but as a general rule, unless an accused is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non-bailable warrants should be avoided. The conditions for the issuance of non-bailable warrant are reiterated in Inder Mohan Goswani and in State of U.P. v. Poosu, wherein it is mentioned that (Inder Mohan Goswami case, SCC p. 17 para 53) “53. The conditions for the issuance of non-bailable warrant are reiterated in Inder Mohan Goswani and in State of U.P. v. Poosu, wherein it is mentioned that (Inder Mohan Goswami case, SCC p. 17 para 53) “53. Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court when summons or bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result.” This could be when firstly it is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in court; or secondly that the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summon and thirdly if it is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed into custody immediately. In the absence of the aforesaid reasons, the issue of non-bailable warrant a fortiori to the application under Section 319 CrPC would extinguish the very purpose of existence of procedural laws which preserve and protect the right of an accused in a trial of a case.” 7. From bare reading of the mandates given in the aforesaid case, it is clear that since the execution of a non-bailable warrant directly involves the curtailment of liberty of a person, warrant of arrest cannot be issued mechanically, but only after recording satisfaction that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is warranted and such power has to be exercised judiciously and not in a mechanical way considering the nature and seriousness of the offence involved. 8. In view of the above discussion, since the two orders, in my opinion, have been passed by the court below in a mechanical manner without applying judicial mind and even the orders do not reflect that the mandates given by Hon’ble Supreme Court have been followed, both are liable to be quashed. 9. Regarding being had to the facts and circumstances enumerated above, I find merit in this writ application, it is, accordingly, allowed. The orders dated 03.01.2015 and 25.03.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh by which warrant of arrest and process under Section 82 of the Code respectively have been issued against the petitioners in G.R. Case no. 4492 of 2014 arising out of Patratu P.S. Case no. 270 of 2014 are, hereby, quashed. Petition allowed.