JUDGMENT : The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 07.06.2018 by which process under section 82 Cr.P.C has been issued against him. 2. Mr. Kumar Nilesh, the learned counsel appears for the informant namely, Narendra Kumar Sharma. 3. On the basis of a written report dated 17.02.2018, Bank More (Bhuli) P.S. Case No.45 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.658 of 2018 has been lodged for the offences punishable under sections 497, 323, 387, 379, 504 & 506 IPC. The petitioner has brought on record the entire proceeding in G.R. No.658 of 2018 which would disclose that a copy of the First Information Report was received in the court on 19.02.2018. One of the co-accused namely, Puja Kumari Vishwakarma has been granted benefits under section 438 Cr.P.C by the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad by an order dated 05.03.2018 passed in ABP No.438 of 2018. However, the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner vide ABP No.431 of 2018 was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 23.04.2018. On 02.05.2018, the warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. At this stage an application for production-cum-seizure list is taken on record. Now, the process under section 82 Cr.P.C is issued by the learned Magistrate by an order dated 07.06.2018. 4. Mr. Kumar Nilesh, the learned counsel for the informant submits that the accused- petitioner was trying to dispose of the assets. 5. The impugned order dated 07.06.2018 simply records that the investigating officer has moved a requisition for issuance of process under section 82 Cr.P.C on the ground that after serving notice under section 41A Cr.P.C he tried to arrest the accused but he is absconding. This order does not reflect any material information which are required for a subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate before process under section 82 Cr.P.C can be issued. The order dated 07.06.2018 also does not reflect that the learned Magistrate has verified the facts from the case-diary. The fact that the petitioner had moved an application under section 438 Cr.P.C becomes relevant in the aforesaid facts. 6. Viewed thus and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, I find serious infirmity in the impugned order dated 07.06.2018 and accordingly, it is quashed. 7. In the result, Cr. M.P. No.1925 of 2018 is allowed, however, the learned Magistrate shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law.