Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 435 (JHR)

Anil Kumar Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2017-03-01

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Sonua P.S. Case No. 31 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No. 143 of 2003 including the order dated 03.04.2007 by virtue of which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 368, 471, 420, 379, 411, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. Further challenge has been made to the orders dated 26.07.2007 and 11.10.2007 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa, whereby and whereunder non-bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation under Section 82, Cr. PC has been ordered to be issued. 3. At the outset it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is confining his argument for the present only with respect to the order dated 11.10.2007 by virtue of which coercive steps have been ordered to be taken against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was never aware of the issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation under Section 82, Cr. PC since in the charge-sheet the innocence of the petitioner was detected by the Investigating Officer and final form was submitted in his favour. It has been submitted that the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa, however disagreed with the finding of the Investigating Officer and take cognizance against the petitioner on 03.04.2007 and has also summoned the petitioner to face trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recently when the Police had approached the petitioner in the month of December, 2016 then the petitioner come to know that he is being prosecuted in the case and coercive steps have been ordered to be taken against him. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 11.10.2007 also does not justify issuance of proclamation under Section 82 Cr. PC as no reasons has been assigned in the same. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 5. It appears that initially a case was registered being Sonua P.S. Case No. 31 of 2003. PC as no reasons has been assigned in the same. 4. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. 5. It appears that initially a case was registered being Sonua P.S. Case No. 31 of 2003. Investigation culminated in submission of charge-sheet in which the name of the petitioner did not figure. However, vide order dated 03.04.2007 the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa was pleased to take cognizance while disagreeing with the final form submitted by the Investigating Officer and thereafter non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner and the other accused persons. Since the petitioner was not aware of the subsequent development the petitioner did not take steps with respect to the issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against him. It appears that on 11.10.2007 proclamation under Section 82 Cr. PC was directed to be issued against the absentee accused persons including the petitioner. The impugned order dated 11.10.2007 is not substantiated by any reason, thus the same being not sustainable in the eye of law is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 6. This application is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinabove. 7. However, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. 8. However, it is once again made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case since the learned counsel for the petitioner had confined his argument for the present only with respect to the challenge which has been made to the order dated 11.10.2007. 9. This application stands disposed of. Application allowed.