JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner, who is the mother-in-law of the victim, is aggrieved of the order dated 13.12.2018 by which process under section 82 Cr.P.C has been issued against her. 2. The complainant is represented through Mr. Mitul Kumar, the learned counsel. 3. Mr. Mitul Kumar, the learned counsel for O.P. No.2-complainant submits that anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 28.11.2018 passed in A.B.P No.230 of 2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chaibasa. A photo copy of the certified copy of the said order is tendered by the learned counsel for the complainant in the Court. 4. Taken on record. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding in Chakradharpur P.S Case No.79 of 2018 would disclose that the process under section 82 Cr.P.C has been issued by the Magistrate, in haste. 6. A First Information Report being Chakradharpur P.S Case No.79 of 2018 was lodged on 01.09.2018 for the offences punishable under sections 498- A /341/326/307/506/34 I.P.C. It is admitted at Bar that now a charge-sheet has been submitted in Chakradharpur P.S Case No.79 of 2018 but only against the husband of the victim lady and investigation against the petitioner has been kept pending. The petitioner moved an application vide A.B.P. No.230 of 2018. As noticed above, her anticipatory bail petition has been dismissed on 28.11.2018. Now within 15 days, process under section 82 Cr.P.C has been issued by the Magistrate against her. On a perusal of the proceeding in Chakradharpur P.S Case No.79 of 2018 what strikes the mind of the Court most is that the Magistrate while exercising the powers under section 73 Cr.P.C or section 82 Cr.P.C or section 83 Cr.P.C should not give an expression that he is party to the dispute; justice hurried is justice buried. In exercise of powers under section 73 Cr. P.C, therefore, non-bailable warrant of arrest should be issued by the Magistrate only when on the basis of materials produced before him he has formed an opinion that the accused is either trying to tampering with the evidence or fleeing from the course of justice. 7. The petitioner is an old lady, she is the mother-in-law of the victim. 8. P.C, therefore, non-bailable warrant of arrest should be issued by the Magistrate only when on the basis of materials produced before him he has formed an opinion that the accused is either trying to tampering with the evidence or fleeing from the course of justice. 7. The petitioner is an old lady, she is the mother-in-law of the victim. 8. The exercise of powers under section 73 Cr.P.C visits the accused with serious consequences; his liberty is curtailed by exercise of the powers under section 73 Cr.P.C. Similarly, process under section 82 Cr.P.C ensues serious consequence to the accused. Time and again the courts have been reminded that the Magistrate while exercising powers under section 73 Cr.P.C and under section 82 Cr.P.C or section 83 Cr.P.C should record his subjective satisfaction which, of course, the Magistrate forms on the basis of the materials brought before him. 9. The facts disclosed in the present proceeding lead me to conclude that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate in issuing processes under section 82 Cr.P.C cannot be countenance in law. Accordingly, impugned order dated 13.12.2018 is set-aside. 10. In view of the above, Cr.M.P. No.38 of 2019 stands allowed.